Soundoff: Is Pac-10 Expansion A Good Idea?
by Avinash Kunnath on Feb 10, 2010 11:00 AM PST
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
PrintLooks like our conference is trying to move its way up the pecking order among the big six, especially in terms of the football side of things. Cali49a alerted us to the story yesterday.
Utah possibly to the Pac10?
This is all speculation…but sources are telling ABC 4 Sports that Utah will be invited to join the PAC 10 conference, but not BYU. The Cougars could wind up in the Big 12…or staying put in the MWC.
Several dominoes have to fall first, but here’s how it could all play out…
The Big 10 wants to expand to a 12 team league..giving them a conference championship game in football, like the SEC and Big 12. Pittsburgh could be asked to join the Big 10..or possibly Rutgers.
The PAC 10 would then follow suit, and it would need to invite 2 schools, and it could be Utah and Colorado.
We've discussed the theoretical prospect of moving the conference from ten to twelve teams a few times on this site (mostly one commenter who also wants to demote Wazzu to Division II, but for the most part he comes with good intentions); there are plenty of pros in a pragmatic sense, although some cons come with it as well.
Well, now it looks like Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott is exploring the idea pretty seriously. Better start firing up the opinions again.
"It is really over the next six to 12 months that we'll start having serious analysis and serious evaluations," Scott said.
While there has been major upheaval in conference alignments in recent years, the Pac-10 has remained stable for more than three decades. But with a new commissioner and television deals that expire following the 2011-12 academic year, the time is ripe for a fresh look at the issue.
"To me, the logic if the Pac-10 is going to think about expanding, now is our window," Scott said. "The reason being if you're going to consider a reconstruction of the conference, there's a value proposition associated with that. Given that we're about to have negotiations regarding our media rights, it makes sense that if you're going to do it, to do it when you can monetize it and get value from it commercially."
Should the Pac-10 expand? More importantly, will it?
After the jump, take a look at some of the viewpoints our commenters espouse on the issue.
Sure Utah might not have that sparkling record like in 2008. However, they’re a solid Western football program. Colorado was highly competitive until the Southwestern Conference dissolved and became the Big12S. The Big12N has practically no shot consistently winning the Big12 as currently constructed.
So, simply put the Pac-10 has four major problems:
1. Inferior television deals;
2. Weak bowl tie-ins;
3. Low revenue relative to other top conferences; and
4. Poor conference national perception.This allows for 8 conference games (adding some matchup novelty every year), 4 OOC games, and a highly overhyped Conference Championship game against (likely) a ranked foe late in the season.
In other words, ESPN would probably be more likely to schedule games for a Pac-12 rather than a Pac-10, there would be opportunities for additional bowls and more plum matchups cross-conference, and put the conference on a more equal footing with its Eastern counterparts. Whether that'd actually happen is another story altogether, but expansion does sound like it could resolve some of these bigger issues.
concordtom explains how the Pac-10 would lose some of its singular identity if they decided to go all-out with that:
The Pac 10 is the best conference in terms of both football and basketball. In football, they play a true round robin where everyone plays everyone once. It works out perfectly. The other conferences are totally lame and chance of schedule plays into who the conference champion, which cheapens it.
In basketball, everyone plays everyone twice, once at home and once away. Again, the crowning of a Pac 10 champion is complete.
Why mess with a good thing?
Indeed, the Pac-10 would probably become similar to the Big 12 and the SEC--a few more cupcakes to fill the schedule. The conference championship game would make up for that lost round robin game. However, anything special about the Pac-10 would be lost, replaced with a more homogenous product of twelve teams, two divisions that fits the distinctions of other big power conferences.
What almost every reasonable college football fan wants is something other than the BCS. A Pac-12 might very well pull us away from that objective, with another extra game making it difficult for anyone to advocate playing any more games. Oh wells.I prefer to keep the Pac10 the way it is, but the conference is going to be jockeying for a new tv contract ($$$$$$) soon and having a 12 team conference with 2 divisions like the Big 12 is more appealing to the networks. The Pac10 needs to get with the times or it’s going to fall further behind the other BCS schools.
Personally, I don’t want the expansion to happen and wish the Rose Bowl would get out of its contract with the BCS. I don’t think that’s going to happen. Once again, the BCS and how it’s tied into the MNC is the biggest root of the problem.
The BCS can suck my Campanile.
Where do you stand?
210 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like the potential of a Pac12 gaining two BCS bowl games.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
That’s one plus, definitely. Give everyone in the conference one more win (cupcake) and one less loss (round robin) and it’s bound to help BCS bowl chances. We’ve never had 2 teams in the BCS and a lot of it is that we’re not on even footing.
Another plus I see is 2 more teams and a bigger audience can help secure a better TV deal. The perception that the Pac-10 is weak is not helped with the fact that the SEC has a bajillion dollar contract with ESPN and CBS. I know ESPN is as good as it gets in terms of sports reporting, but don’t tell me there isn’t a tendency to talk up the SEC and talk down the other conferences. I mean, if you have a huge deal with the SEC, why wouldn’t you try to make it seem like they are the best? Why wouldn’t you want them in the national championship game? It just means more exposure for your network and more money. Pac-10 is sorely lacking in its prime-time exposure.
One thing that comes to mind is a few years ago, when CAL went down to USC and ABC (through ESPN) broadcasted the game regionally but also broadcasted another game nationally…the commercials had the other game in HUGE font, while the CAL v USC game was in tiny itsy bitsy (can’t even see) font below it. HOWEVER, the next yr when it broadcasted 2 games (one regional, one national) that did not involve the Pac-10…both games had equal sized Font in their advertisement.
by DavidsonBear on Feb 10, 2010 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
Here's the issue with this line of thinking
“I like the potential of a Pac12 gaining two BCS bowl games.”
There are still the same number of BCS bowl berths whether we go to 12 or not. Having 12 teams hasn’t helped the ACC one iota. It’s still going to be just as hard to get two teams in outside of the fluke year where one team is a mortal lock and a team that has no business being in it wins the conference championship (a la basketball).
I just don’t know how much it actually increases our chances.
Any thoughts on the idea of getting relegated? :)
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 2:06 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, it sucks that the round robin would probably go by the wayside, but I think it’s inevitable, and I just hope they pick good schools.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 11:46 AM PST reply actions
Round Robin
I love it. That’s why I favor the Pac-10 over a Pac-12. We have the same schools in both football and basketball in our conference. We play everyone. It’s fun and I’d like for it to stay.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Feb 10, 2010 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, but at what cost? It’s kind of like an arms race, and by standing still we fall behind. We already don’t get as much respect or attention nationally because we’re on the “left coast”. I dunno, I think there are merits, and although I prefer the round robin, it might be something worth sacrificing. I dunno, at least in basketball can’t we play a couple fewer OOC games maybe and do a round robin?
In football, if we could structure the conference in a way so that there’s relative parity, and one conference isn’t full of bottom-dwellers (like the Big 12 North, for example), then it could be fair and work out well.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
Looking at carp's chart...
…it looks to me like 3) and 4) are merely the product of 1) and 2). Better TV and bowls mean better revenue and improved perceptions.
If the Alamo Bowl is really moving to January 1, that’s a good move – getting two Pac-10 teams playing on New Years’ Day is helpful for the image of the conference. Better options than Versus and Fox would help – maybe it’s time to see if NBC wants to expand their action beyond Notre Dame? ESPN’s got to have some room on the roster beyond just endless SEC games (then again, I’ll never see Vandy on TV any other way)…
I think one of the biggest things that could be done to improve the Pac-10 HAS been done, though, and that’s replacing Pete Carroll with Hello Kiffy. Eight straight titles did nothing but feed the “Pac-1” perception east of…well, east of I-5, to be honest. If Lame can do for U$C what he did for the Penitentiary of Tennessee, a lot more Pac-10 teams will have the opportunity to get visibility and people may finally be freed from the notion that just because the Trojans keep winning year after year, they must necessarily be playing the Poor Claire Sisters, World War I Veterans’ Home, Girl Scout Troop 266, et al.
(After all, everyone knows that’s actually Auburn’s non-con slate through 2014…)
"Well, if that ain't a show, I'll kiss your ass." - Gov. Jim Folsom Sr. (D-AL), 1948-52
by VandyImport on Feb 10, 2010 11:48 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
Hey, I was talking with a friend of mine the other day, and I’m sure you’re probably a bit biased, but how does Vandy compare to say, Rice or Duke academically?
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
Hello Kiffy.
lol haven’t heard that before.
Quantity AND quantity!
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 10, 2010 12:14 PM PST up reply actions
I've seen it on EDSBS...
http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/364984/hello-kiffin.gif
I think it needs some updating…volunteers?
I would love to watch more cal games on the bigger channels and get our teams out in the spotlight, but (french) playing by the terms of the BCS and the rest of the country! As it was elegantly stated already, they can all go suck on the campanile. Let the Pac-10 haters rot on their side of the country.
The conference is making progress already without needing to bring in more names! Kiffin is just a continuation of last year: Carroll was at USC and they finished an inconsistent season. It was widely commented that Pac-10 illustrated “depth” this year, and some parity. Cal, UCLA, and Oregon had some good recruiting hauls that may reinforce the parity. Lets reap the fruits of these developments and keep the round-robin. With one or two exceptions, the division is improving and there is no need to place two teams on a pedestal by going to an SEC-style schedule.
"It’s not a good car and not a good boat, but it’s the best car-boat ever made"
LOVE THE ROUND ROBIN!
but… if there’s any expansion, I have but one request: do not call it
(adjective) (number of teams in conference)
Call it the Pacific Coast Conference.
Line up a TV network deal with the Atlantic Coast Conference so we can have bookend national conferences.
Capture NY and LA media markets and be done with it.
although it is carcinogenic. PDC is a little friendlier.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I do, too…but it hasn’t worked out so well for the ACC.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I don’t think that’s the fault of the name.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 1:52 PM PST up reply actions
What if it was Fantastic 4?
Quantity AND quantity!
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 10, 2010 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
There is no upside to keeping the conference at 10 teams. The only one that can be argued is the round robin but even that costs the conference 5 extra losses every year, to it’s detriment in the national rankings and BCS selection.
As much as I would prefer to keep the round robin, I want to prevent the ascendency of the Mountain West and put the conference on a higher pedestal.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
Yes, keeping a RR schedule would hurt rankings, but wouldn’t adding another cupcake to the schedule means lower attendance at games, which looks bad on TV if it even gets televised which in turn hurts exposure.
You don’t think getting a second team in a BCS game would offset whatever lower attendance at said cupcake game? Moreover, having these additional markets augments the conference’s bargaining power, even with a smaller school like Boise because of their national reputation.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
actually, I think removing RR would help the rankings. There are always a gazillion Big12/SEC teams in the Top25.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
But isn’t that because there is a bigger disparity from the top 3/4 teams than the rest of the conference in the Big 12 and SEC. Half of the SEC teams were under .500 last year and 3 of 12 were at .500, 5 of 12 Big-12 teams were under .500 and 2 of 12 are at .500. Whereas in the PAC-10 we had 4 teams under .500.
Assuming we only play 8 conference games instead of 9, Yes. Also doesn’t scheduling a cupcake usually require pay out to the cupcake school of some sort. Didn’t we pay Eastern Washington something for showing up.
The home team always pays out, regardless of who it is. But the revenue from the attendence more than makes up for it.
Extremely rough example. Say we host Panhandle St and 50,000 fans show up paying an average of $30 per ticket. $1.5 million in revenue offsets the $400k payout plus Cal is “guaranteed” a win which theoretically could equate to a better bowl, more TV, etc.
Goin' balls deep with Cal since 1972!
by Fire Starkey on Feb 10, 2010 1:29 PM PST up reply actions
I’d like to keep the Pac-10 because I wouldn’t want two divisions. Assuming they split the conference geographically and fairly, Northwest (Cal, furd, Oregon, OSU, WSU, and UW) / Southeast (USC, UCLA, U. Col, Utah, ASU, UA). So teams would play with their division (5 games) and rotate through 3/4 teams in the other division.
We wouldn’t play USC and UCLA every year, which are usually the most hyped and attended games of the season besides the Big Game. That’s also losing a game where the #1 and #2 west coast TV markets are watching. You could put all the California teams together in the same division, but then it wouldn’t seem balanced. The same goes for UO/OSU vs. USC/UCLA. Would losing these annual match-ups actually make the PAC-10 more appealing to view? Not to me. I think fewer Pac-10 football fans would watch on TV if they were replaced with another OOC game like Cal vs. New Mexico.
TV wise, I think the commish should really push for NBC since ESPN is way too crowded as it is. I doubt they have any thing good on Saturdays nights (i think it’s Law and Order reruns). They should do a flex schedule thing like SNF and put the marquee game on NBC primetime at 5/6 PM PST. Keeping round robin scheduling should guarantee a good game every week. It’ll be mutually beneficial. NBC at least the LA and SF markets to watch and Pac-10 will have better exposure.
They could divide it simply North/South….
Pacific North:
UW, WSU, OU, OSU, UU, CU
Pacific South:
Cal, ’Furd, USC, UCLA, UA, ASU
Or they could completely mix it up, which might be interesting.
Pacific-A:
UW, OU, Cal, UCLA, UA, CU
Pacific-B:
WSU, OSU, ’Furd, USC, ASU, UU
On one hand, you probably wouldn’t want rivalry games outside the division. On the other, you could have rivals meet in a conference championship game, though they’d be rematches.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
I thought about that too but the problem with Pac North and Pac South is it turning to Big 12 North and Big 12 South.
Pac-A and Pac-B is interesting and could work. Georgia and Georgia Tech are a big rivalry and they’re not even in the same conference. Although, CU and UU aren’t really rivals I guess they can start something. Rematches for championships happen everything now and then for other conferences right?
Colorado and Utash would not necessarily need to be rivals. Colorado plays Colorado State and they’re already not in the same conference. Nothing stopping that now. Teh same thing could happen with BYU and Utah. Rivals don’t necessarily have to play in the same conference. It kind of makes it interesting.
Also, I’m of the opinion that it’s time to rid the conference of Washington State. I know every school has a down period, and fairly lengthy ones, but their is really no benefit to keeping them. Here is my ideal scenario;
NORTH: UW, Boise State, Utah, BYU, Oregon, Oregon State
SOUTH: Cal, Furd, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
BYU is competitive in the two major sports and is a natural rival to Utah. Boise because of the strength of their football program and proximity to UW. They are all states that currently adjoin states that contain current conference participants.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
Oh no, not you too!
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Feb 10, 2010 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
needs more Colorado (if they migrate, we’ll take ’em!)
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Colorado instead of Boise would work for me, though would not create the kind of buzz Boise would create.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
Colorado is an awesome state. Boise is in Idaho.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 1:54 PM PST up reply actions
Wow. I thought I would be in a very small minority in not wanting a Pac-12, but I’m kind of heartened to see I’m not (based on the poll results thus far).
My dislike of the addition has several sources — not the least of which is fucking with a pretty nice history and set of rivalries. The P-12 North would likely have the Oregons, Washingtons, and the n00bs. While that maintains our current rivalries with the SoCal schools, it takes away a nice rivalry with the Oregons (at least). Plus, I hate hate hate hate the idea of a conference championship game.
Not only that, I don’t see Carp’s contention that adding Utah and Colo (or Utah & BYU) will increase revenue and make the P-12 more appealing to networks. Why? Utah and Colorado aren’t exactly tearing it up on the ESPN schedule. In fact, I’d argue that the only reason anyone televises Colo games nationally is because they’re in the B-12. And since when are either Utah or Colo such big names that they’d bring national attention and respect? Adding them would simply bloat the conference and make the national perspective be USC and the 11 dwarves.
The only good thing about expanding (as far as I can tell) is the new name. We’d be called the 12-Pack, with two Six Pack divisions. Otherwise, bleh.
Whose Axe?
OUR AXE!
Really? I’m surprised it’s about even, considering that in 2008 it was 64% against.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 12:18 PM PST up reply actions
I like the 12 Pac
with the 6 Pac divisions. What would they be named? I hope Cal is in the Anchor Steam division.
Sancto Tedford
by Anonymous IV at Mono Lake on Feb 10, 2010 12:27 PM PST up reply actions
This makes no sense. The conference hasn’t always been 10 teams and has expanded multiple times, even bringing in schools from smaller conferences with questionable academic reputations.
Regarding the Mtn West purge or even Colorado, how exactly would it not increase revenue to add two teams. More attendance, more games on television, more teams in bowl games, and, hopefully, a greater likelihood of getting a second BCS team. More markets gives the conference greater leverage in negotiations with the networks.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
how exactly would it not increase revenue to add two teams. More attendance, more games on television, more teams in bowl games, and, hopefully, a greater likelihood of getting a second BCS team.
Again, how?
1. More attendance. Sure, adding two teams means adding two stadiums’ worth of attendance figures. But will it actually significantly impact the overall average attendance for games? And while that does add two more teams worth of $$ to the coffers, it also adds two more teams worth expenses to the books. At best I’d say this is a wash, unless you imagine sold-out games when Colorado comes to town – and I don’t forsee huge excitement for that.
2. More games on TV. Really? Conference wide, maybe. But again, the added money comes with added expense.
3. More teams in bowl games. Perhaps. This is a positive, yes.
4. Greater Likelihood of a 2nd BCS team. Perhaps again in some years.
All in all I am not 100% opposed to expansion (though I prefer not), but if so, at least get teams better than stinking .500 Colorado.
Whose Axe?
OUR AXE!
So, you agree attendance overall would increase. You agree that there would be more games on TV. You agree there would be more teams in bowl games. And you agree there is a greater likelihood of getting a second team in a BCS game. OK.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
All the revenue from TV and bowls gets split up. I do not see the average revenue increasing, therefore adding two teams effectively decreases revenue to the existing schools.
even with two very large BCS bowl checks?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I do not believe he took that into account. Nor do I believe he took into account that a better TV contract would increase even average revenues. And, i do believe two additional markets and a conference championship game would make the conference more attractive.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
Denver-Aurora-Boulder has over 3 million people. SLC metro has over a million and is growing quickly.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 9:28 PM PST up reply actions
Better TV contract – not sure addition of the two new schools would improve our attractiveness to the point of a better TV contract. If it were a couple big name schools say that reside in Texas then sure. But some combination of Colorado/Utah/BYU – not sure our stock goes up to the TV folks. If Colorado comes so we get Denver plus SLC, maybe. If Utah & BYU so one market – meh. Not sure we can get some more ESPN love.
Conference championship game – well it is an event, so TV folks like it. However, these events have hardly inspired much interest in most conferences. The huge benefit of these games is on the down-slide, I’m uncertain if having such a game is the huge deal it once was.
BCS bowl checks are a good point
Not sure how far it would go split 11 ways nor how often it would occur more than today (although given our track record, even once makes it a LOT more ;-).
A fair point, don’t know the numbers myself.
Ahem.
So, you agree attendance overall would increase.
Well, duh! Add two more schools, and even if they draw only one fan per game overall attendance increases by 2. But what does that actually prove? Or benefit?
You agree that there would be more games on TV.
Possibly. No guarantee of that. There could just be more of a balkanization of the televised games so that they’re more regional. Adding two teams doesn’t automatcially mean that the entire west sees every game. So, maybe more televised games per week (say, 6 instead of 5), but broken into regions with no net difference.
You agree there would be more teams in bowl games.
Again, possibly. But so what? I seriously doubt the Eagle Bank Bowl paid enough into the conference coffers to offset the cost of transporting Ucla across country.
And you agree there is a greater likelihood of getting a second team in a BCS game.
Actually, I’m not sold on that. I doubt very much that a 12 team Pac-10 would have gotten us a 2nd BCS team in any of our past years except (perhaps) when we were Mack Browned out of the Rose Bowl.
All in all this love affair with expansion seems to be one where the suitor has those glasses on where he can’t see the flaws in his potential mate. There is some potential upside, but just as much downside. Not a slam-dunk by any means. And honestly, I don’t understand this irrational desire for Colorado. They’ve been Meh in football for years, and basically irrelevant in every other sport.
Again, someone please explain in simple terms why this is better for the conference. We don’t add prestige – either academically or athletically (Utah and Colo are nice, but hardly premier schools or programs); we don’t add that much money (after subtracting the cost of everything associated with the addition of two distant schools); and we don’t improve the bottom line (we’d likely still have the same number of conference games). And the cost would be more money for travel, a disruption of established (and growing) rivalries, and what seems like a lateral move. Just adding two more ASU-type programs.
Excuse me if I don’t start celebrating just yet.
Whose Axe?
OUR AXE!
Colorado stinks now, but they have a solid history and a good fanbase. With a new coach and a new conference, things could change in a hurry. They were pretty good as recently as 5 years ago.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly! It’d be easier to pry them from the Big 12 than say, Texas, though Texas would obviously be a huge get.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 4:23 PM PST up reply actions
No.
I like the pods and the destinations and the rivalries and the generally liberal and education-oriented cultures at our current 10 campi.
Quantity AND quantity!
liberal and education-oriented cultures
By liberal I assume you mean schools like: ASU, UA, UCLA, U$C, and Furd
And by education oriented you mean: ASU, UA, OSU, UO, WSU
Right?
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 10, 2010 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly. the conference has 5 very good academic institutions and 5 not very good academic institutions. The academic argument is moot seeing as the last four additions to the conference have been anything but academic powerhouses.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
ASU, UA, OSU, UO, WSU are still major, large, public research universities that give out a ton of degrees. No, they’re not “top tier” per se but they are certainly “better” than a litany of mid-major schools.
Quantity AND quantity!
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 10, 2010 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
See below. BYU, Utah, and COlorado are all research universities and all rank as well or better than our bottom 5.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
BYU is a research university????
In what, golden tablet finding? polygamist studies? Missionology? Polynesian recruitment strategies? I’m confused
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
The problem
with expansion are the distances that separate schools in the west. If the Pac-10 were to expand why not just go for Texas and A&M. Both schools bring a lot more to the table than anyone else in academics, sports, and media markets. It also keeps the instate rivalry thing that makes the Pac-10 unique.I realize the problems, but if the Big 10 goes for expansion there will be a domino effect. It will be especially pronounced if it is Missouri that leaves for the Big 10.
Sancto Tedford
by Anonymous IV at Mono Lake on Feb 10, 2010 12:23 PM PST reply actions
I just don’t see why these teams would leave the Big 12. What would they gain? Wouldn’t Texas Tech be easier to purge? maybe TCU too.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
When the Southwest conference
broke up the first conference that Texas wanted to join was the Pac-10. But politics got in the way since the alumni of Baylor and Tech threatened Texas with budget cutbacks if those schools were left behind. Ever wonder why Baylor is in the Big 12? It was because Ann Richards, a Baylor grad, was governor of Texas at the time.
Sancto Tedford
by Anonymous IV at Mono Lake on Feb 10, 2010 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
Oh, I know why Baylor is in the Big 12. I hear it all the time, especially from angry Houston alumni.
Again though, I don’t see why they would do it now. But, if we could get Texas, the conference has to do it, no matter what.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
It is just wishful thinking on my part.
But hope is just disappointment waiting to happen.
Sancto Tedford
by Anonymous IV at Mono Lake on Feb 10, 2010 12:46 PM PST up reply actions
that’s why we have airplanes.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Distances
I was curious about this myself, so started looking up the distance from Denver to the existing Pac-10 schools (because I really think expansion is not viable without Colorado — two schools in Utah do not add anything from an attendance/prestige standpoint, but there are shitloads of CU alums/families in the existing Pac states, and CU was an athletic powerhouse not too many years ago).
Seattle is the city furthest from Denver (1,000 miles), but is 200 miles closer to it than to the Arizona cities. Denver is roughly the same distance from Seattle as Seattle is from LA (70 mile diff). It’s roughly a 2 hour flight from anywhere in the Pac.
Austin, on the other hand, great as Texas would be from an attendance/prestige perspective, is almost 1800 miles from Seattle. This would be the rough equivalent of adding freaking Ilinois to the Pac. Texas is just too, too far, and the 2-hour time difference is also problematic.
I am not really a fan of expanding, but if we do, I don’t really see any schools outside of Utah and Colorado that would make sense. And for those moaning about “where is the Pacific in Utah and Colorado?” it’s the same place it is in Tucson. Several hundred miles to the left.
Couple of notes:
1) I think Wazzu should not be moved to DII or DIAA. Mtn West or WAC is fine. Don’t think of it as my opinion…it’s something that is being discussed by the Wazzu AD.
2) Interesting, isn’t it, that CGB is now in favor of a Pac10 expansion when it was something like 60% no in Oct. of 08?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I LOVE MY ROUND ROBIN.
Boise, Fresno, Utah, BYU ARE NOT academically up to standard with the rest of the Pac-10 (ASU aside)
In other words, Go Bears!
4. Stanfurd
21. Cal
24. UCLA
26. USC
42. UW
71. BYU
77. Colorado
102. Arizona
106. Wazzu
115. Oregon
126. Utah
Tier 3. Oregon State
Regional Schools. Fresno State (#12 among Western public schools) and Boise (#20 among Western public schools)
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
But academics isn’t just about these rankings. It’s also about what kind of institutions they are – research universities or not? We may pooh pooh the academic prowess of some of our Pac-10 brethren, but all of the Pac-10 members are respected research institutions. For example:
Members of American Association of Universities (AAU):
Cal (charter member in 1900)
Stanfurd (charter member in 1900)
Washington (1950)
Oregon (1969)
USC (1969)
Ucla (1974)
Arizona (1985)
As for the Pac-10 members that are not AAU members (ASU, OSU, WSU), each of those institutions is classified as “Comprehensive Doctoral” institutions with “Very High Research Activity” by the Carnegie Foundation’s Classifications.
Utah and Colorado fit the Pac-10 profile. Colorado is an AAU member and Utah is classified “Comprehensive Doctoral” with “Very High Research Activity” by the Carnegie Foundation. BYU is close to being there, and with the positive reputation of rankings given by USNews, maybe BYU would pass muster with the Pac-10 membership (but I doubt it). But Fresno State, Boise State, or San Diego State? No way.
I am a Vereenian.
by Ohio Bear on Feb 10, 2010 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I never wanted Fresno or San Diego. Utah, BYU and Colorado all fit the profile and when it was claimed they don’t fit academically, I think it is pretty clear that they do. As for Boise, I would note that Arizona was not classified as AAU until after it joined the conference. While Boise is certainly the worst academic fit, it does however provide the requisite national splash.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
But not really. It’s not like they have a major national following or anything, it’s just that they’ve been good the past few years and have crashed the BCS ball. How sustainable is the Boise State program, really, and do they have the kind of facilities and other athletic and academic programs that fit in with the rest of the conference?
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 3:54 PM PST up reply actions
the US news is mainly a ranking of the college endowment. When they had a real statistician apply some defensible metrics (putting Cal Inst of Tech to #1 I think) they fired her. The founder of the ranking wanted Harvard and Yale at the top at all times, he considered that his validation for the rankings themselves.
I agree the rankings are not perfect. No one in their right mind would put Cal at 21. That said, it does a decent job at putting schools in tiers. And, it is fair to say the Oregon schools, Arizona schools and Wazzu are not shining examples of the Pac-10’s academic superiority.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
Sure, BYU doesn’t fit culturally, but academically?
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
I prefer the round robin for football, but I recognize the monetary impetus to expand for football, and thus wouldn’t protest adding Utah and Colorado.
But if we do that, can we not add them for basketball? Please? Be like the Big East with their 8 football teams and 16 basketball teams. Utah and Colorado simply don’t add anything to Pac-10 basketball. Colorado has been pretty crummy for as long as I can remember. Utah is pretty good, but not so good to mess with what they have. And I don’t think either would make the conference much more money.
Just say no to basketball expansion!
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
BYU is a better fit than Colorado
I think BYU is the far stronger choice than Colorado. Not only are breaking up two rivalries (Holy War and CU/CoSt.) but bringing Utah and BYU gives you “two schools to a region” making for easy division of the Pac-12.
Pacific 12 North:
UW
Wazzu
Whoregon
Whoregon State
The Furd
and Cal
Pac 12 South (I use the term “south” loosely):
U$C
fUCLA
ASU
Arizona
Utah
BYU
Please, please, please not Colorado. It’s like adding Minnesota or Illinois. (although I would appreciate the stinger of stealing a Big 12 team from their conference).
CU/CSU isn’t a conference rivalry… Its Big12 v. MWC…
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
Utah and Colorado border each other and are in the same “region”. Utah and Colorado are both in the mountain west. Please just say no to BYU. We don’t need another private school, and one with a religious affiliation to boot. Colorado is PERFECT, both academically and culturally. Plus, Colorado is much more of a Western state than a Midwestern one.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 1:49 PM PST up reply actions
says the token Mormon, I presume?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Good. Me neither.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Some may disagree.
carp at 2:09pm
“Well, maybe they shouldn’t have financed the Yes on 8 campaign and stuck to teaching the "withdraw" method.”
Well, I don’t think it’s disputable that the LDS church financed Yes on 8, and it’s not bigoted to point that out.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions
yeah, I’ll spot ’em the “withdraw” comment, though that is in-line with my pervert humor and could have easily been replaced with an anti-polygamy.
For the official permanent record, I have no beef with people of a particular religious persuasion, although judging the intelligence/logic of people who can accept lies/half-truths and deny modern scientific facts is fair game.
No, all Muslims shouldn’t be shot.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
It’s part of the identity of the conference. None of the other schools in the conference have this. Most are large public universities, and though both USC and Stanford are private, they are very prominent independent schools in major metropolitan areas. The big thing for me is that Provo sucks, whereas Boulder/Denver is awesome. Utah is large, public and in SLC, so I’d be okay with them, though academically they’d be on the low end of the Pac-10 spectrum.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 1:59 PM PST up reply actions
CO Boulder is in the Big 12 not the MWC (though they've played like it as of late)
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
I didn’t say they were in the MWC, just that they were in the Mountain West Region, as opposed to the Midwest, because Glanko compared adding CU to adding “Minnesota or Illinois”. My point is that Colorado is more a Western state than a Midwestern one geographically and culturally, and it belongs much more in a Western conference like the Pac-10 than in a conference with schools like Iowa and Mizzou.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
Right now there is perfect symmetry to the Pac-10. If we must add 2 new teams, let us at least keep that perfect symmetry. Our rivals are in our conference, and there’s two teams from each “state” (yes, I treat NorCal and SoCal as two states). It makes our games fun, ensures healthy rivalries, and, most of all, leads to some kick ass football.
I think a bit of this “cultural fit” nonsense has a bit to do with BYU’s affiliation with the LDS church, which is a pretty terrible reason to oppose BYU’s joining, not to mention excluding hem on this basis is completely contrary to this “liberal, progressive, and open-minded” image that we insist defines our conference. Also, and I hate to burst the bubble of LDS-haters out there, but Utah is a pretty Mormon school too, just not to the degree BYU is.
I think the private school argument is equally bogus. Stanford is private and conservative…and I couldn’t imagine our conference without them. Sure, I hate them with every bone in my body, but face it, we need them to hate. I scarcely doubt that another private school with have any marked difference on the day-to-day life of Berkeley students…not that the average student even cares about football, or could name the teams currently in our conference.
BYU’s affiliation with the LDS church, which is a pretty terrible reason to oppose BYU’s joining
Well, maybe they shouldn’t have financed the Yes on 8 campaign and stuck to teaching the “withdraw” method.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
No, that’s my real reason. There are plenty of good reasons (undergrad school, don’t play on Sundays, limited market, questionable affiliation with a group that uses their tax exempt funds to fund anti-civil right propositions). Your comment, though, suggests you turn a blind eye to such things.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
err…that’s not my real reason.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Did Glanko just serve you?
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Feb 10, 2010 2:25 PM PST up reply actions
I addressed most of this above.
I don’t have a problem with having Mormons or people of any religious persuasion in any school. Like I said, I don’t have a problem with the idea of the University of Utah being in the conference. I just don’t like the idea of endorsing and sharing revenues with a school which has an official affiliation with ANY religion. I wouldn’t want TCU in our conference either, for example.
BTW, I also don’t appreciate the implication that I’m a “Mormon-hating bigot”.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
Atoms prefers that you state that he’s a “Mormon-hating bigot” outright. He’s really offended by only implications.
Yeah, because then I could tell you to your face that you’re full of shit.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 2:13 PM PST up reply actions
that was mainly directed towards the comment:
“says the token Mormon, I presume” -
hence why it followed that comment. Such a comment would be unthinakbly offensive if “Mormon” was replaced with “Jew” or “Black”
But yeah, I disagree with your general opposition to religion schools. Same rule applied to BC, Villanova, and Georgetown?
Same rule meaning, would I pick them for my conference? No, I wouldn’t. I don’t particularly care for any of those schools, though I don’t have any problems with their existence or anything. They’re good schools, as is BYU, and as is Notre Dame.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 2:18 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry. Would never think that such a statement was “unthinkably offensive,” though I have tough skin and I’m not afraid of speaking.
Ironic, isn’t it, that you’re calling me out when you’ve aligned yourself with a school/religion that’s participated in several questionable (at best) behaviors?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I haven’t aligned myself with anything…unless you count religious tolerance. Then yeah, I’m aligned that way.
I agree, the only people I HATE are bigots and racists.
And blacks and Jews.
Quantity AND quantity!
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 10, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions
Stanford is not conservative.
Quantity AND quantity!
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 10, 2010 2:18 PM PST up reply actions
haha I was just about to post a link to http://www.hoover.org/
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 2:20 PM PST up reply actions
Conservative relative to Cal, Boulder? Yes. Conservative relative to any Big 12 or SEC school? Heyylll naw.
Quantity AND quantity!
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 10, 2010 2:32 PM PST up reply actions
Why are we comparing to the Big 12 and SEC though?
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
Because they are completely different regions that the Pacific Coast/Western US?
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 3:10 PM PST up reply actions
The original argument was “Stanford is conservative.” I think it’s silly to say that when nationally many other universities are much more conservative.
Quantity AND quantity!
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 10, 2010 3:17 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t know this Stanford all of you are talking about. I’ve heard of a Stanfurd filled with orcs and trolls and other horrible things that we take the Axe from every year though.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Feb 10, 2010 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
Berkeley College Republicans is still one of the largest and most active groups on campus.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Only because they tout their list of people they get on their sign-up sheets during Welcome Week. If you pressed and investigated how many people were actually active in the club, I think you would find it’s nothing spetactular. That being said, I do use the Berkeley College Republican example to make poeple who believe Cal is a godless tree-hugging cesspool of Pinko Commyism look like tools.
wow
well, I believe Uncle Larry said/implied that BYU’s out…they don’t play on Sunday.
Can we please end the “breaking up rivalry” argument? No one says they have to end, they’ll just be played OOC. Look at some of the great ACC/SEC rivalries for example. Actually, your Colo/Colo St rivalry is an example of an already existing OOC rivalry!
Colorado and Utah, I believe, used to be rivals though it’s been awhile since they played.
Switch Furd/Cal with Utah and Colorado and your N/S divisions look good to me.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Colorado and Utah can start a pretty damn good rivalry if they join the Pac-10. They’re border states and, with both in a BCS conference, will fight it out for recruits in Colorado and Utah. Colorado sort of created a similar “rivalry” game with Nebraska in the Big XII.
I am a Vereenian.
by Ohio Bear on Feb 10, 2010 2:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Plus they can still play CSU as an OOC game like they do now. And Utah can play BYU every year OOC.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
They have good colors, too (red/white vs. black/gold).
For those hating on Colorado’s tough go of late, let’s not forget they won a MNC (1990), Heisman Trophy (1994), and the epic Stewart—>Westbrook Hail Marry after a defender initially deflected it.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
The irony of that statement is, both Minnesota and Illinois would be great adds to our conference. Both have decent sporting programs, and both are quality research institutions. Illinois has the 6th largest library(4th largest academic library) in the entire country, right behind Cal(3rd largest academic, 5th largest nationwide):
* 1) Library of Congress – 32,332,832 total volumes held
* 2) Harvard University – 15,965,675
* 3) Boston Public Library – 15,760,879
* 4) Yale University – 12,283,594
* 5) University of California, Berkeley – 10,725,334
* 6) University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign – 10,712,706
Source:
The Nation’s Largest Libraries: A Listing By Volumes Held – American Library Association
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
For the Record
Colorado State is not Colorado’s primary rival. Colorado’s primary rival is Nebraska. Ask any Buffalo and they will agree. Colorado St is a rival, but a lesser one.
Why only 12?
Lets get ahead of the game and expand to 14! Lets take over two new states by adding Colorado v Colorado St, and BYU v Utah. If we are going to expand, lets take it to the next level!
my wishlist for 2 teams for "Pac 12"
Texas (either TCU, Texas Tech or Houston).. nice if we can convince Texas / Texas AM to join if Missouri goes to the Big 10
Colordo/UTah , from what I understand… it is almost the same distance as Seattle/Pullman
Unlike carp
I’m not hesitant in admitting that Utah/BYU’s LDS and Prop 8 connection is a BIG reason why I don’t want them anywhere near the Pac-10.
In other words, Go Bears!
You should also be opposed to all California schools since it is THEIR voters that voted for Prop 8.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
What? It’s not like Cal, UCLA, Furd and SC is going around associating themselves with an organization that is behind Prop 8
In other words, Go Bears!
If you don’t think their are graduates of those 4 schools associated with Prop. 8 you are extremely naive. That said, I’m appalled by the actions of LDS just as I am appalled with any organization that perpetuates hate under the guise of God’s word.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
None of those schools (Cal, UCLA, ’Furd, SC) are officially affiliated with a particular group of those individual graduates associated with the Prop 8 campaign. BYU is so affiliated, and therein lies the difference.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 9:21 PM PST up reply actions
I understand their official relationship with LDS. I just think to oppose Utah and BYU on this basis is misguided when members of all of those California institutions worked on behalf of Prop. 8 and it is a canard to blame them when it is ultimately the voters that passed the proposition It is also worth noting that the football following public is more conservative than the general public, even in California. My guess is college football fans in California voted for Prop. 8 at a greater rate than the state as a whole.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
I don’t think it’s fair to oppose Utah on this basis, but I don’t blame people for opposing BYU because of their affiliation.
Yeah, ultimately the responsibility lies with our own voters, but that doesn’t excuse the perpetrators of hateful and deceitful propaganda.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 9:30 PM PST up reply actions
A Couple of Points
1) Boise State is not an option. Let me repeat that, Boise State is NOT an option! They would do absolutely nothing but drain the finances of current Pac-10 schools. The expansion is not driven by increased competition level, it is about gaining a larger audience. An audience large enough to offset splitting money by an extra school. Boise St (although, a great football program) does not add enough audience to make a difference.
Exhibit A: State populations, where is Idaho??? Idaho is under ‘other’… they don’t help
Exhibit B: Boise State doesn’t have enough fans. For 2008 they ranked 74th in average attendance directly behind Army. Their average was 30,338, Cal, a school which rarely fills its stadium averaged over double that figure. Colorado averaged 50,519 (43rd nationally) and Utah averaged 42,593 (54th nationally) both schools would rank 7th in the conference. Boise St would rank last.
http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2007/Internet/attendance/IA_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf
2) BYU and Utah will not be added jointly. Again, the idea is to add market share, and audience. BYU and Utah share the same market. Granted BYU is more popular in the state of Utah, but both Utah and BYU are aired on the same number of television sets, that is the most important fact. Seeing as the Pac-10 is a step up for both, we have our choice, and Utah fits far better with our academic pursuits, while not demanding the rest of conference adheres to their morality while scheduling.
3) Rivalries, as stated previously, whichever schools that do add would not lose their rivals, they would simply schedule the game as an OOC. This happens all the time, across the country, it is common and popular.
4) Splitting of the conference. There is only one way this split happens. The pacific northwest joins with the rocky mountain schools. The California schools join with Arizona.
-Reasons:
-In addition to the traditional rivalry games (i.e. Cal-Stanford) the other key rivalries are upheld (the northwest within itself) and California within itself, UW-UO don’t want to lose that game, CAL-UCLA don’t want to lose that game, USC-Stanford don’t want to lose that game
-any bizarro arrangement like UW, UO, CAL, UCLA, UA, and Colorado would have increased travel costs. Increased cost results in decreased revenue, the opposite of what the conference is attempting to do.
by chowder on Feb 10, 2010 3:26 PM PST reply actions 4 recs
I agree with almost all of this. Yes, a bizarro arrangement would potentially be more expensive than a convenient geographical alignment, but they already have pretty high travel costs in the current Pac-10 setup. The West is big. Besides, there’d be 1 fewer conference game to travel to.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 3:48 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, a bizarro arrangement would potentially be more expensive than a convenient geographical alignment, but they already have pretty high travel costs in the current Pac-10 setup
If the conference already has expensive travel costs, they wouldn’t try to limit travel costs? There would also be one fewer conference game regardless of the divisional alignment, so I don’t see why that influence how the divisions are subdivided.
I’m not necessarily saying it should necessarily be “bizarro” and not geographical, but if for some reason we wanted to divide things up non-geographically, so that… for example, not all the high population or high endowment schools are in one division, say, it wouldn’t necessarily be the end of the world.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
I would not be surprised if Boise would be willing to expand their capacity if it was requested. Also, what is missing in this is that Boise is a nationally recognized power at this point. The fact that it is from a small state in a small market is offset by their stature on the football field and in the eyes of the national media.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
Only in football…the school has to be prominent in several NCAA sports!
Quantity AND quantity!
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 10, 2010 3:53 PM PST up reply actions
Is buffalo hunting an NCAA sanctioned sport?
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Feb 10, 2010 3:56 PM PST up reply actions
WHY DO YOU HAVE TO MOCK BUFFALO? HASN’T IT BEEN MOCKED ENOUGH? WE ARE CURSED!!!!!!
Oh, you meant the animal . . .
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
I think I’d rather be from Buffalo than A buffalo.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Feb 10, 2010 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
I’d rather be a CU Buffalo than from Buffalo.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 5:10 PM PST up reply actions
Boise is a nationally recognized power at this point
No, it is not.
Furthermore, they are not recognized as such. If they were more people would have watched them play in the 2008 Pointsettia Bowl. Instead they received a 5.061, when #9 Boise St played #11 TCU, a number good enough for the middle of the bowl ratings in spite of the high rankings of both teams.
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/13/ncaa-college-football-bowl-game-ratings-2008-9/10685
You should be aware that the 5.061 is actually very good for the Pointsettia Bowl.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
During that bowl cycle, and according to rankings that game was probably in the top 5 for most interesting. Its ratings placed it near the middle (I think 14 out of 33). Contrast that with Cal-Miami, of which, neither team was ranked, yet still had higher ratings, and I conclude that Boise State may not be the national draw.
Granted some of the ratings shortfall is due to its television timeslot. But, when you look at this year, when Boise St and TCU met for the Fiesta Bowl, they received the lowest ratings of the BCS bowls, in spite of having the second rated match-uo (based on rankings).
Brands, alumni base, and local fanbase generate selling power for a football program (translating then to conference television negotiating power). The alumni base is limited, local fanbase is limited, the brand (in spite of being excellent for nearly a decade) isn’t strong. Casual fans in the midwest, northeast, and southeast will not tune in to watch Boise St.
New York only has 19mln people? Considering six millino supposedly live in NYC, I thought there’d be a lot more. Must be some decently unpopulated areas upstate.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Having lived upstate for a couple of years, I can testify that it is indeed pretty sparsely populated.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 8:15 PM PST up reply actions
There are certainly areas that are sparsely populated, just as there are in California, but there are plenty of mid-sized urban centers, including Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Albany. Buffalo’s metropolitan area has a population of just under a million.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
Yes, but outside of those 4 cities, and maybe a couple of other places in between like Binghamton, Schenectady, and Utica, there’s a lot of empty space in between.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 9:23 PM PST up reply actions
I thought upstate NY was quite beautiful, for sure. Not very exciting, though.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 9:30 PM PST up reply actions
NY has lots of rural areas outside of NYC and the mid-size cities. That said, only 19 million? It is the 4th largest state in the country, that’s small?
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
rec'd for pretty chart
Quantity AND quantity!
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 10, 2010 11:04 PM PST up reply actions
I hope somebody has done the math
because I fear the movement to expansion is driven by fad as much as the best interests of the conference. I have not been paying much attention, but it seems far from obvious to me that the cupcakes and the conference championship game will be enough to justify upending the status quo.
1. The current conference schedule wins on style – playing all the schools, keeping all the rivalries, ensures everybody gets a shot at the best team in the conference, and ensures a legitimate conf champ is crowned. And that is even before we think about the implications of expansion for other sports and the academic pretensions of the conference. I hope that somebody has done the calculations to show that it will be worth throwing away the virtues of the current arrangement. So let’s look at the arguments – I am not convinced yet that they add up to convincing arguments for new conference members.
2. TV. We are surrounded by the wide open spaces. As demonstrated above, it is hard to see Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, and even Colorado adding much to the conference leverage in negotiating a tv package. Moreover, I am not convinced that adding a mountain state school would improve the national appeal of the conference. Texas would change everything, but is there any basis in hope in having Texas bail on its current sweet deal (playing in its backyard, lock on conference championship game and top national ranking most every year, etc.) to get hooked up with the 12 Pac? The Big 12 is not imploding like the SWC was.
3. Tie-ins. What basis do we have to think that two more schools will land a better bowl? Which ones? The SEC is happy to play in and around Florida and those bowls doesn’t have an interest in western schools with questionable fan bowl attendance in the eastern time zone. Seems like the same for the Texas schools and bowls. Would the Big 10/11 want to come to the coast for a new fancy bowl? (Would we want them? Or the Big East?) The It may make the conference more attractive to mountain west and Pacific bowls, but we already have a pretty good reputation there. I suppose part of the argument rests on the conceit that dropping five conference losses, and replacing them with cupcakes will make the conference look better to bowls (and and maybe the networks, see 2 above). Has anybody tested this? Is it possible that the polls will see the cupcakes for what they are? Which Pac 10 school would have been higher rated if it did not have an extra conference lost, and which bowl would it have been promoted to? Under the current bowl arrangement most our schools are slotted by conference place, so does that mean we could get more schools into bowls (seems like the conference did pretty well this year anyway)? Or is this to reduce the number of conference losses and thereby raise the profile of the conference and then improve the bowl-tie ins (see cupcakes above)?
4. Revenue. I suppose this is related to 2 and 3 above. But in addition has anybody looked at the implications of dropping two conference games and replacing them with a cupcake and one of the new conference members? It seems possible to me that the result will be less than full stadiums. As noted above, Colorado and Utah are below conference average in home attendance. We are not the SEC, where all games are sold out no matter the opponent. Will those games be televised – will anybody watch? Also, what are the prospects for selling out the conference championship game? (Where would it be held – Los Angeles? San Francisco? At one of the participating schools? Would fans travel to the game (from Utah? Oregon? Washington?))
5. Reputation. Unless the new schools are highly reputed, like Texas, I am not sure adding them will add to the conference reputation per se. Are Utah and Colorado national powers? 5 less conference losses may help the conference reputation, but how much? Is it possible that SEC schools are highly regarded for reasons other than conference win and loss record? Same for Big 10/11 – I think both of these conferences have a lot of built in advantages, starting with rabid fan bases and cultural focuses that we can’t (or want to) match, and then population advantages, and maybe other things.
old and cranky,
jh
I don’t have time to refute all of these, but, I believe the SEC is highly regarded because ESPN regards them highly. Also, it does help that the big programs in that conference play cream puff schedules setting up epic matches in-conference between numerous 1-loss and undefeated teams.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
Florida playing FIU and Alabama playing Chattanooga the third weekend in November is a total joke and a travesty.
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2010 9:26 PM PST up reply actions
But in addition has anybody looked at the implications of dropping two conference games and replacing them with a cupcake and one of the new conference members? It seems possible to me that the result will be less than full stadiums. As noted above, Colorado and Utah are below conference average in home attendance.
If we drop a conference game (which is away every other year) and add a home cupcake, it does two things: every other year, you get an extra home game – even if not filled cupcake home games are still a lot of money. It also all but ensures a win every year – which let’s say we currently win that extra conference game at home but lose away (which is too simplistic, but roughly correct), then every other year we remove one L and add a W. That’s a pretty big deal when we are close on that BCS border.
BTW this could all be moot if the Pac-10 continues its foot-shooting (but awesome!) tradition of taking these nice cupcake spots and instead scheduling home-and-home BCS conference games. Damn them.,
Stick With The Status Quo
I’m against expansion, unless the schools are an academic fit and also accommodate the Pac-10’s unique geographical rivalry situation.
If the Pac-10 did expand, my personal preference would be Colorado/CSU or Utah/USU. Both pairs are research universities, although CSU and USU are on the same level as Oregon State or Washington State. At least this way we would preserve the unique competitive spirit of the Pac-10.
by The Trojan Bear on Feb 11, 2010 3:54 AM PST reply actions
Texas contacted by the Big 10
Well, maybe this idea of adding Texas is not so far out. It was reported today that the Big-10 contacted Texas about joining them. If they can do it, why can’t we. (and on a side note, Colin Cowheard also gave his opinion that if Texas belonged anywhere besides the Big-12 it belonged in the Pac-10. His argument was mainly about the culture of Austin Texas)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on California Golden Blogs
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
About Us
• About the Golden Bloggers
• Our previous site @ Blogsome
• Avinash @ Bears Necessity
• Best of the Golden Blogs
• Golden Blogs Interviews
• HydroTech's Cal Football Analyses
• Ron Fimrite's Anatomy Of A Miracle
• CGB Weekly Guides
• GoldenBlogs' Community Guidelines
• GoldenBlogs' FAQ
• CGB GIF Army
Learn More About The California Golden Blogs Clothing Store
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
Pacific-12 Conference Standings
(updated 1.2.2012 at 11:12 PM PST)
| North | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
Oregon Ducks
|
8 | 1 | 12 | 2 |
|
Stanford Cardinal
|
8 | 1 | 11 | 2 |
|
Washington Huskies
|
5 | 4 | 7 | 6 |
|
California Golden Bears
|
4 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
|
Oregon St. Beavers
|
3 | 6 | 3 | 9 |
|
Washington St. Cougars
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
| South | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
USC Trojans
|
7 | 2 | 10 | 2 |
|
UCLA Bruins
|
5 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
|
Utah Utes
|
4 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
|
Arizona St. Sun Devils
|
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|
Arizona Wildcats
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
|
Colorado Buffaloes
|
2 | 7 | 3 | 10 |
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.
