The Monday Morning Wash
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 6:42 AM PDT
Email
PrintLet's open the week by talking about what some goals of new Pac 10 commisioner Larry Scott ought to be. We expect him to shake things up a bit in order to create more revenue opportunities for the league.
Initially, expect Mr. Scott to attempt to restructure the Pac 10 bowl alignments. The league is currently being courted by the Alamo Bowl for it's second place team, significantly impacting its present agreement with the Holiday Bowl. Should such an arrangement reach fruition, the Pac 10's long-term relationship with the Sun Bowl would likely end.
The conference is also exploring the possibility of playing a game in New York City against either an ACC or Big East opponent. Possible locations for the New York game could include Yankee Stadium or the new football facility being built in the Meadowlands for the Jets and Giants. While on the surface this sounds interesting, how many west coast fans are going to travel to New York during the holidays? On the other hand, how many wanted to go to Las Vegas on Christmas Day to play in a second-rate facility? NYC wouldn't make much sense for me if I lived on the West Coast; however i would buy a ticket from Chicago to NYC to see the Huskies play.
Once again, this is all driven by the lure of additional television revenue, with a possible Pac 10 bowl lineup of the Rose, Alamo, Holiday, Big Apple (NYC), Emerald, and Poinsettia.
Expansion is also back on the table, with Colorado and Utah being the only logical schools on the target list. The Pac 10 wants to expand its TV market, but why discuss expansion now? Simply, the next round of television contracts are coming up and it appears the Pac 10 will follow the lead of the Big Ten and build its own cable network. Expanding membership increases the league's value and TV sets that would subscribe to such an option. By adding Utah and Colorado, the league thus controls the Rocky Mountains, on top of the west coast, and adding more weight to negotiations with the networks.
By expanding to twelve teams, the league would split into two divisions. However, but don't look for simply North/South alignments. Ideally, splitting the rivals up in order to avoid isolating the Northwest from California. Here is my proposal of how it could look:
Division A: USC, Stanford, Arizona State, Oregon State, Washington State, Utah
Division B: UCLA, California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Colorado
Each school would play their division plus two from the other division, as well as their their natural geographic rival. This allows all schools a balanced, eight game conference schedule plus non-conference opponents each year.
Considering the question of a championship game, and specifically where to play it merits examination of other BCS conferences. Others have been utilizing the non-rotation route. The Pac 10, however, is more geographically isolated, so look for the league to pick a permanent location where the weather is good, ruling out the Northwest, and putting the game in either Los Angeles or Phoenix.
Another point of discussion is playing an annual game in Asia, with Japan probably being the primary target. The NFL has been playing international preseason games, and travel does take a toll. Therefore, if the Pac Ten does go to Asia, look for it to be a season opener with an NCAA exemption to play the game in late August. Therefore, no matter where the calendar falls so each team is certain of a bye-week after the event.
On the basketball front, it's a safe bet we would all love the league to move its basketball tournament out of LA and rotate it regionally. I think it would be a lot better attended if it was In Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, and Phoenix on a rotating basis. There isn't much interest at this point to do so, considering FOX Sports basically controls the tournament, financially. The money is on the TV, not in the stands.
This Coming Week
The Huskies will practice every day this week with the exception of next Sunday. Look for Sarkisian's staff to try to get some kids healthy and start game-planning for LSU. Competition at most of the positions will continue, though the team had their final scrimmage on Saturday.
Position battles to watch are highlighted by the competition at wide receiver and running back. D'Andre Goodwin, Jermaine Kearse, Anthony Boyles, and Cody Bruns have some catching up to do. Goodwin and Kearse have little worry, but Boyles, and Bruns need to make an impression this week to get back into the rotation mix.
Though we haven't heard much about Willie Griffin in the newspapers, he is having a solid camp. He picks up tough yards, holds on to the ball and he is the best blocker in the bunch; if you can block well, you'll find playing time in any team's offense.
Desmond Trufant is going to be in pads this week and expect the coaches to give him as many reps as possible. The coaches are really high on the freshman from Tacoma; there is a rumor floating that he may be the Huskies' best cornerback heading into the season.
Greg Walker and David Batts are battling for the starting job at safety opposite Nate Williams. Walker has the edge because he was here this spring and knows what Coach Holt expects as far as communication goes. Batts on the other hand has better size and is extremely talented in his own right. Jason Wells has been slowed by an achilles strain and Alvin Logan who has great potential is still learning the position and coming back from a knee injury. both the aforementioned will contribute this season but are not in the mix to be starters for the opener.
Coverage on special teams needs to improve over the final two weeks. They think the punting, place kicking, and return units are progressing nicely but the coverage isn't where they need it to be.
Bud Withers
Our friend Bob Condotta is a lot more bullish on Arizona than I am. I just happened to pick UW over Arizona and UCLA in my standings prediction for 2009. His colleague Bud Withers of the Seattle Times is on his own personal skywriters tour of the Pac 10 and he writes about how Arizona thinks they should be on the upswing but are picked to only finish 8th in the conference.
Quote of the Week
"The Oregon Ducks are the college football version of Paris Hilton...they're famous for no reason, they look pretty, and they got a rich daddy." - ESPN's Kirk Herbstreit
86 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Lots of thought provoking points today
…thanks for not regurgitating the normal newspaper blog stuff. Its why we keep coming.
I’ll save my opinion of the Big 10 network for a later time (as a Minnesotan, I’ve unfortunately had to deal with this for the last couple of years …let’s put it this way, I was able to watch twice as many Husky games than Gopher games from my family room in Minneapolis).
As for NYC, I think many people would be willing to travel to that location. NYC is a great place to visit for the holidays and a diverse destination, in general. The location might cancel out the “road-trippers”, but its not like people were not flying to get to Hawaii or El Paso. I think the NYC idea is a good one and I’d love to follow the Dawgs up there some time.
Vegas lights shine bright off of Gekko's mojo.
Big Ten Network
It is included in my Direct TV sports package, and I have watched a few games on it.
You live in Mpls-St Paul and I live in Chicago so flying to NYC is no big deal. Much longer and more expensive from the Left Coast. I can usually fly to NYC for around $100-$150.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions
I WAS a Minnesotan ...
… but I now call Las Vegas home – and I’m still willing to fly. You’ll get no argument from me that NYC is far more expensive than El Paso. However, you also get a much better overall experience. But I am a NYC enthusiast. I’d spend the whole week there before the game and then cap off my holiday with a Husky victory in the Big Apple Bowl. I can definitely see your point.
Vegas lights shine bright off of Gekko's mojo.
I Love Manhattan
Always have a great time there.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Regurg...
It is tough to find a unique angle every single day in the pre-season so thanks for the compliments. Once the season starts and games are played it gets a lot easier to focus on something that others have missed.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Expansion
So why is it Colorado and Utah? Wouldn’t it be better to consider Utah and BYU, keeping their rivalry in the same conference? Is BYU just too small market? Does the PAC-10 want to avoid having to worry about no Sunday scheduling in other sports to appease BYU? Does Colorado bring more opportunity for money?
As much as I hate BYU, it seems they would be a better fit than Colorado.
BYU doesn't work
They come close to fitting academically and they won’t play on Sunday which creates scheduling problems.
Keep in mind that it is academic partnership first and an athletic conference second.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Colorado
Colorado is actually a great fit. The question is whether the Buffs want to make a move. Utah on the other hand would make the jump in a New York minute…for the Ute’s it is a big step up. Since Colorado is already in a BCS conference they have more to think about on the athletic side. Academically though it is a big step up for Colorado to align themselves with the PAC.
Everyone has to remember that the PAC 10 and BIG 10 are also academic alignments.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions
academic alliance
what does that mean… they all agree to do research?
by mynameisdavid on Aug 24, 2009 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Alliance
It is an academic alliance which means they participate and share in research which just happens to bring in a lot more money than football. The schools are impressive seperately but when aligned together they are even more powerful.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Contraction instead...
kick out WSU or trade ’em for San Diego St., HA!
by mynameisdavid on Aug 24, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions
I strongly doubt the Univ California schools would allow
any of the state universities in, and that includes Fresno, San Diego, San Jose, etc. Prestige is the reason as well as research academics etc.
Also meant to add, doesn’t BYU bring the possibility of greater TV revenue given all the Mormons spread throughout the country? Certainly BYU has a greater national following that Colorado, somewhat akin to Notre Dame’s. And if the PAC-10 is thinking about dropping their alliance with FSN and starting a PAC-10 Network, getting BYU onboard would garner a ton of subscribers outside of the west coast and rocky mountains.
Mormons
I think the negatives outweigh the positives for BYU. I also wouldn’t put BYU in the same neighborhood as ND. By the way nobody is close to ND in that area.
A Pac Ten Network would just be an addition to the coverage they get on a regional cable network like FOX. For example nobody would be left out each week in football or basketball because they would be able to show every single game. they would also be able to show sports you don’t see much such as baseball, gymnastics, track, soccer…etc… .
I don’t think they will drop FOX unless ESPN wnat to invest in a regional cable network out West to compete with them.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree that no one has a national following like ND’s. But I would wager that BYU has a larger national following than any other team, even if it’s nowhere close to ND’s. Except for ND, I haven’t seen a larger number of people at Husky stadium rooting for the visiting team than when BYU visited last year. It really pissed me off, it seemed like the ratio was 3:2 UW:BYU (while it seemed 1:1 with ND).
Thanks for your views. I thought that the Sunday scheduling might be one of the hurdles that BYU will have to face to get into a major conference. And I appreciate the information with regards to TV. I had always heard that the PAC-10 was considering forging their own network rather than FSN.
BYU
The point is mute from an academic standpoint. BYU is private and they don’t want to add a private school. The next item is they are not a research university in the mold that the pac ten would like hence the lack of acadmic fit.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Boise State
The year before they REALLY showed up at Husky Stadium in force! I was impressed.
by doubledeucedawg on Aug 24, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions
johnb, I would change your alignment slightly.
I think it should be split west /east by rivals. So I would move UW and UCLA to west and WSU/ USC to east based on geography, that way there is no griping of gerrymandering later. Will have to get out a map and see which is further east among UO/OSU and UCLA/USC.
For Neuro, BYU is not a player due to their faith which prohibits playing on sunday. That would impact many other sports, and with Utah you would already garner the Salt Lake TV market anyway. Colorado is a much better choice for the Denver inroads.
Also agree with johnb on NYC game, I wouldn’t go. If they could move Las Vegas bowl to say 20-23 of Dec, it would be a lot more attractive as a vacation destination, there isn’t much you could do to upgrade their crap facilities (stadium). So its a crap shoot (pun intended) as to whether to continue the affiliation there or not. I think it would be a good idea to have an ACC or big east team play the Pac10 in Texas somewhere, halfway for both parties.
Alignment
I didn’t put a lot of thought into it. Obviously they could align it a lot of different ways to keep it even.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Trufant
I’ve heard “rumblings” that Trufant looks like he’s gonna be ready to add quality minutes at DB this year. This makes losing Gaisie hurt a lot less.
I’m amazed that other schools slept on another Trufant. I always hated that we let a local kid (Tacoma) go to WSU and have great success. Glad we got in on the brother and he’s looking to be a gem as well.
Gaisie certainly hurt
Surprised to learn he is at Central rather than BYU. Gaisie would have been a starter. No knock on Glenn or Long but they have zero game experience.
The guys at DM weren’t especially wowed by Trufant by the way. The new coaches loved him and still do. They think he projects well and like his smarts. Neu passed on Marcus and look what happened. Glad to see the new staff liked what they saw in Desmond….bloodlines helped.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions
No disrespect to the guys at DM
But I’m gonna take the word of coaches like Baird and Holt. Both are high on Trufant though I would have loved to have Gaisie as well
I think Desmond gets a lot of benefit from having his older brother near to talk about technique and he was able to participate in spring ball which is a plus.
DM
The DM guys thought he was on a par with Nolan Richardson from Kennedy who was not offered.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Trufant
didn’t avoid any contact during the scrimmage last Saturday. He stuck his nose in every time the play came his way or the ball was thrown to his side. I think he gets playing time this fall.
Trufant is ready now
They are really going to push to get him ready.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions
So what did you think of him...
…T90dawg? I realize you’re not a coach but you know what a good athlete looks like.
by doubledeucedawg on Aug 24, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Impressed
He wanted be in on every play and hit someone when he had the chance. He wasnt 10 yards off the ball in coverage before the snap and didn’t start back peddling before the snap like we’re used to seeing(UGH)
Thanks!...
…and that’s great to hear, we need him!
by doubledeucedawg on Aug 24, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I tend to look for interest from certain schools
that normally recruit “under the radar” kids well. Thus when Mike Riley at OSU or say Utah is offering a “sleeper” it carries more points for me considering that both schools historically have done excellent evaluation and coaching on their 3 star kids.
Utah
Yeah I noticed that too. I think Utah’s staff does a great job of evalutating talent but don’t think for a minute they know socal kids better than Sark and Company.
by doubledeucedawg on Aug 24, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Alignment
I actually prefer the North South alignment. Traveling costs would play into this and its cheaper for UW to go to OSU and WSU then UCLA and Cal. Mine would be broken down…
Northern Division – UW, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Colorado, Utah
Southern Division – Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, ASU, Arizona
We could do 5 in conf games, 3 games vs the rival division, and 3 non conf games. The 3 games againist the Rival conference would be on a rotation.
very very bad idea
you would effectively cut yourself off from recruiting California and Arizona. Travel costs are not that much more for a trip to the bay area than LAX or PHx. If they did this, you would effectively end up in a very weak division up North. They tried this with baseball for many years and the UW and other northern teams suffered. This is a great idea though if you area are a LAX or Az fan. If this happened, the UW and the Oregon schools might as well go ahead and join the MWC or WAC>
Yep
They won’t do that because it doesn’t work. You need it to be split by population not geography.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Good Point prrbrr...
…those socal recruiting connections are irreplaceable. Especially when our staff is a major player down there!
by doubledeucedawg on Aug 24, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions
A couple of questions if I may...
First, in regards to recruiting, a team will still play 3-4 games from the other division. Meaning you are still playing at least 2 games a year in Cali. In the Northern Div. you are now playing in 4 different states compared to the Southern teams who play in two (amongst their own division). You are still able to recruit Cali but also add Utah and Colorado.
Second, how can you say the North would be weak…? Utah was a BCS championship team last year, Oregon is a top 10 team. UW is down but could easily get back up to a constant top 25 team and Oregon State is right there year in and year out. If anything the North would be a better division top to bottom then the South who would have USC, Cal and everyone else.
Third, Football and Baseball are two completely different beasts. Especially in the college ranks.
The Big XII is set up that way and who remember’s the Big XII north when the major schools of Okla and Texas are in the South.
Nebraska would argue otherwise.
Missouri is a top team as well as Nebraska has A LOT of tradition. Colorado used to and is down now but could come back up. The Texas and Oklahoma will always have a recruiting advantage (much like USC and UCLA) no matter what division they play in.
SEC also does it geographically…they seem to be doing JUST fine.
Geographic splits are how the SEC and Big 12 do it…why not the PAC 10?? They seem to be doing just fine. The only conference that doesnt do it geographically is the ACC…you want to be the ACC????
Missouri has been good the past 3-4 years, but they are not at a level of Texas or Oklahoma. Nebraska has been a down program for years. What I was trying to say is that when you think of the Big XII your going to think of the Big XII south because you have Texas and Oklahoma.
Plus I would argue that Texas Tech and Okla St are better teams than Nebraska and Missouri. It helps out if you were in the “better” division of your conference.
Comments on League business
1) I suppose conglomeration and larger leagues are inevitable, and I can see pros and cons to geographic divisions. But the dinosaur in me keeps looking for some way to instill that elusive “tradition” into the mix. We could all come up with our favorite rivals to be grouped with, but I wonder if everyone else could agree? If there was some long-term stability, maybe the divisions would create new traditional rivalries?
2) Do we have to wait for our own television network, or can the new commish negotiate with FOX to put games back into the daytime? I can see playing at night when you go to the desert, or when playing an early-season game (like LSU this year), but playing at night in a cold weather venue stinks. The fans stay away, which looks bad on TV, and is anyone back east watching at that hour?
3) I have problems with a League Championship for football. Stretching out the schedule really does run risks with the athletes, because this is a brutal sport and they’re not physically mature enough for an NFL-length schedule. If the “Championship” somehow played into a true NCAA playoff bracket, OK. But adding a 13th game that may not even matter to the BCS selectors is unnecessarily greedy.
4) If we go to a larger, 2-division league, get rid of the mickey-mouse daily grind go-round of the current basketball tournament. We don’t need a second league “champion” as is usually produced, and it doesn’t really represent anything for the Big Dance except the opportunity for a lesser team to get in through the back door. Then in a two-division post-season, let the two division winners (or top two from each division) battle it out for something memorable.
Night Games/FOX
I don’t mind one or two a year but I hate it late in the year! I have to drive back over the pass and that sucks for me! Fox needs to wise up and realize that west coast fans don’t want to see more Big 12 games. Put any Pac-10 matchup there instead.
by doubledeucedawg on Aug 24, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments II
1. I think cross state and cross city will always be the one thing that makes a rivarly happen.
2. The Network is going to happen. Our relationship with FOX will continue too. In the pecking order our contract with ABC comes first so they have the first right of refusal on the times when FOX can air a game.
3. If all the BCS leagues were slit into divisions you could call the championship games the first round of a national playoff.
4. hmmm
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 11:22 AM PDT reply actions
Comments III
(1) Agreed. But outside of CA, that only accounts for one game/matchup. Looking back through the years (as a Husky), I’d personally sacrifice Cal and Stanford, if forced. Unfortunately, I can provide no logic in turn for keeping USC and UCLA, so “my way” wouldn’t work. Somebody at some point is going to have to play the role of Solomon.
(2) I didn’t realize that ABC dictated start times to FOX; thanks for pointing that out. But if we’re all going to become mega-leagues with every game televised, It will be impossible to show every team at non-competing times unless you start at 7:00 AM and throw in Fridays… No, please, forget I ever said that. Someday we’ll tell our grandchildren about football played on crisp, fall afternoons.
(3) This makes sense. Could another Solomon convince all the mega-leagues to funnel just one representative into the divisional playoffs? It looks easy at the FCS level, but we’re talking big money at the FBS level. And I couldn’t advocate more than a 8-team playoff on top of a 12-game season, for reasons previously outlined.
(4) How many people remember who won the “title” x years ago anymore? What title are you talking about? Which is the real title? I think that it’s losing its significance in the current format.
Division A: USC, Stanford, Arizona State, Oregon State, Washington State, Utah
Division B: UCLA, California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Colorado
Div B is too top heavy…
Mountain Division: USC, California, ASU, Oregon State, Washington State, UTAH
Pacific Divison: UCLA, Stanford, Arizona, Oregon , Colorado, Washington
Hel* I don’t know. I like it though
by bigdawgdaddy999 on Aug 24, 2009 12:17 PM PDT reply actions
No way in Hell!!!
Considering the question of a championship game, and specifically where to play it merits examination of other BCS conferences. Others have been utilizing the non-rotation route. The Pac 10, however, is more geographically isolated, so look for the league to pick a permanent location where the weather is good, ruling out the Northwest, and putting the game in either Los Angeles or Phoenix. You gotta be frickin kidding.You rotate the games between Washington , LA and Phoenix.
by bigdawgdaddy999 on Aug 24, 2009 1:38 PM PDT reply actions
I prefer a 10 team league..
1.) The round robin schedules for football and basketball work out beautifully and there is usually never an argument over which team is the true champion. The Pac-10 is actually the only conference to have 10 teams as the Big East has 8 and the Big 10 has 11(?!). If there were an expansion to 12 teams you would have to ditch the home and home format for basketball or miss playing 2 teams every year. If not that then the conference season would need to expand and each team would get 4 less non conference games. Getting to 20 wins has always been a benchmark for basketball teams so you could kiss a lot of the major out of conference B-Ball games goodbye if that happened.
2.) Skipping certain teams during some years is stupid and scheduling anomalies (playing at Oregon 4 out of 5 years??) show up often. I want to see Washington play USC every year regardless of how good they are. Also, if you win the Pac-10 without playing USC the whole country will be sure to note it every time you are mentioned (Ask Georgia about that).
3.) I’m not sure how well Colorado recruits the west coast but they would lose some valuable games in Texas and Oklahoma in exchange for California/The Northwest. It doesn’t seem like a very logical move for them.
4.) The Big-12 likely wouldn’t be very happy about the Pac-10 stealing one of their teams and you’d have to wonder how long that Pac-10 vs. Big-12 hardwood challenge would last after that. Not that it’s a major concern but it is something that should be considered.
5.) We don’t need a conference championship game every year, from a BCS standpoint they only benefit one team and hurt another one. As long as the Pac-10 is winning its bowl games and non-conference games with some consistency the national respect will come.
As for the bowl game in NY idea, I’d go to a bowl game anywhere in the U.S. for this team in a heartbeat. New York is a pretty cool vacation spot so that makes it all the more attractive. Hopefully it is an ACC vs. Pac-10 bowl because the Big East blows and we don’t play the ACC enough. Washington has always traveled well and the major concern for the conference is the schools that don’t travel so well.
At the scrimmage Saturday it looked to me like Fogerson had some very nice runs where he broke a few tackles. He didn’t have the eye popping stats but I thought he ran very well and he should be a great addition to the RB corp this year.
10 days until college football! http://www.youtube.com/user/UWAthletics lots of great football videos here.
I'm Baaaack!
Did all you miss me? John I like the idea of expansion, but do not like your choice of Colorado & Utah. This league has a long history of having the in-state rivalry game and adding Colorado and Utah stinks.
If Colorado is the choice then we need to bring in Colorado State as their in-state.
If Utah is the choice then we need to bring in BYU as their in-state.
Yet I agree with your take of not going with a North/South divisions- it creates too many pockets and USC and Ucla would not agree to be in the same division. Furthermore Arizona and Arizona State would be fuming if they had to go thru USC and Ucla to get to the league championship. Best way it would work is as followed:
Pac 12 North Division
Ucla (which is north of traditional rival USC)
Washington (which in north of in-state rival Washington State)
California (which in north of traditional rival Stanford)
Oregon State (which is north of in-state rival Oregon)
Arizona State (which in north of in-state rival Arizona)
Utah (which in north or in-state rival BYU)
Pac 12 South Division
USC (which is south of traditional rival Ucla)
Washington State (which in south of in-state rival Washington)
Stanford (which is south of traditional rival Cal)
Oregon (which is south of in-state rival Oregon State)
Arizona (which is south of in-state rival Arizona State)
BYU (which is south of in-state rival Utah)
The league would be completely balanced and meshed together, with the league powers seperated by division. Each in-state rivalry game or traditional rivalry game would be played the week prior to the Pac 12 league championship game. And if Utah & BYU are not ideal- then you could substitute them for Colorado and Colorado State. But I don’t think the Bufs are going to leave the Big 12 anytime soon.
All I saw was purple
Colorado State?
It won’t happen…they don’t have the academics or the facilities.
It won’t be BYU either. It will either be Utah and Colorado or it simply won’t happen.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 24, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions
You're Probably Right
I dislike how our league is getting away from “Rivalry Week”. It was awesome when all the in-states played the same weekend. Well if it is Utah and Colorado maybe it would still work by labeling it the Mountain Border War (State of Utah vs. State of Colorado). Yet I still don’t think the Bufs are leaving the Big 12 anytime soon. Why? Because Colorado recruits a lot of kids out west, since they are the furtherst west Big 12 school- they can. Their niche is very secluded away from their partners in the Big 12. Most Big 12 schools recruit in Big 12 country. But see the beautty of Colorado is that they can lure west coast kids away from the Pac 10. How? Because they can offer west coast kids a chance to play Big 12 football and not be so far away from home. Truthfully what’s the difference, milage wize, between Washington and Colorado from SoCal? Notice how Colorado is on most of the Pac 10 schools recruiting wish list? Not done by coincidence.
I believe expansion is coming soon to the Pac 10 and Big 10(11). Every BCS league is a 12 member league right now except for the Pac 10 and Big 10- Big East doesn’t count. And with the mid majors crying for a major bowl bid more and more- it’s going to put pressure on the money leagues to expand in order to stay in the money.
All I saw was purple
Gosh Crazi We Didn't...
…even know you were gone? ;O) Just kidding…welcome back!
by doubledeucedawg on Aug 24, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions
What other schools would fit the bill?
It cant only be Colorado and Utah? What about Boise State, Fresno State, Hawaii, or TCU. I would rather add a top non BCS team then fight the Big 12 for Colorado. I do like adding Utah.
San Diego State?
I don’t think Boise State has a big enough market area. What city is TCU in? That might be intriguing to have the Pac-10 in Texas.
by doubledeucedawg on Aug 24, 2009 5:45 PM PDT reply actions
Apparently the Pac-10 already pretty much owns the San Diego TV market anyway according to Bill Fleenor. If that’s true, probably not much incentive to add them. Plus, it would be an odd rivalry pairing with them and Utah or Colorado.
They fit from a research school perspective, and I have a feeling their football and basketball programs would improve a great deal if they were part of the Pac-10, but in the short term it would hurt conference prestige and the Aztecs would have to pretty quickly improve their athletic facilities. If there’s no major gain in TV market, then there’s not much advantage in pulling them in.
Utah works because it gets the Pac-10 in the Salt Lake City market, and Colorado works because it pulls in some Denver TV sets in addition to Boulder. And those two make some sense geographically as rivals, though it would be weird at first as they don’t have a history as major rivals.
TCU
Fort Worth Texas…right outside of Dallas. They are a smaller school with under 9000 in admissions but they play good football.
TCU
TCU is in Forth Worth which is a huge market. TCU also has an enrollment of 8200 and an endowment of 1.26 billion. In comparison Stanford has an endowment of 21.6 billion.
Dallas in NOT watching the Horny Toads!
Them folks down yawnder are tuning in for Oklahoma and Texas. They catch TCU and A&M on ESPN’s SportsCenter.
The Big East tried this when they took Miami decades ago and didn’t draw crap up in the tri state region (Mass., NY, Penn.)
All I saw was purple
Just trying to think of Non BCS teams who win
Winning is what makes money. Making the PAC 10 a better conference top to bottom is what will make us money. Utah going to a BCS game would make us money…Boise State BCS team, would make us money. We need the conference strength to go up to put us in a better position to get invited to BCS games. We have only had one year with 2 BCS teams…that is pathetic. The East Coast cough bias cough is that we are a weak confernece but yet we go undefeated in Bowl games last year…WHAT!?! How does the Big 10 always get two teams in and always find a way to lose??? We need people to think that the Pac 10 is BIG time football and that wont happen until we get two more winning programs in here. I like Colorado but it may be to tough to pull them from the Big 12…maybe not, i dont know. Just thinking out loud here.
Herbstreit quote
Hey John, has anyone been able to prove that the Herbstreit quote actually happened and isn’t in fact an urban legend? I’d love to believe it’s true, but I’ve yet to see someone provide some proof.
Interesting Kirk
No idea on that one but you have to love it.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 25, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Utah vs Colorado
Oddly enough, there is a historical Utah/Colorado rivalry. Utah has played Colorado 57 times. Only byu, Colo State, Utah State, and Wyoming have played the Utes more games. Unfortunately, the last time they played was in 1962. They were in the Mountain States Conference together for decades, until Colorado joined the Big Seven. The Utah/Colorado rivalry is set to resume (home and home) in 2012-13.
Why do we need
to expand the pact 10 with football and basketball?
Why not have Boise state come in for football and not basketball and Gonzaga in for basketball and (obviously) not football.
The Big East is sort of like this in that it has football only and Basketball only members… why can’t we model our conference in a similar way?
You guys are giving Boise too much love
Small television market in the potato state. Might as well take Wyoming.
All I saw was purple
It's got to be Utah and BYU
Fellas what’s the hold up with the two largest schools in the State of Utah? Do you not see the beauty of adding the mormon state? I’ll provide you with the pros-
The Utah Utes:
1. First rate non BCS football program, which walloped the SEC’s Alabama in a BCS Bowl game last January, 2 BCS Bowl victories in 5 years, finished ranked No.2 in the country in the AP Poll last season.
2. 60,000 seat football stadium, which is bigger then Martin, Reser, and Autzen.
3. Fundamentally sound mens basketball program, which played in the national championship game in the late 90s under Rick Majeras.
4. The campus in in the greater metro region of Salt Lake City, which could host tournament sites (hotels, dining, rentals). Not to mention but league travel in and out would be efficient. NBA city. And a convient airport that is a nice connector to just about anywhere in the nation.
BYU Cougars:
1. The football program has tremendous history under LaVell Edwards, has a national championship and a Heisemen winner. Coach Steve Sarkisian is an alumni.
2. 65,000 seat football stadium, which is bigger then Martin, Reser, and Autzen.
3. Less then 30 miles south of Salt Lake City, which makes league travel in and out of Provo very efficient for team and traveling fans.
4. School owned by the 2nd largest religion in our nation. What does that say? It says that a lot of mormons (nation wide) would be tuning in for Pac 12 football games on television. With adding BYU we’d have that national following for television revenue. And I’m surprised that no BCS league has yet to pick up a school owned by the 2nd largest religion.
What would colorado offer? Another 200,000 television audience from the state of colorado? Take BYU and you’d have 2,000,000 LDS TV viewers.
No brainer- Utah and BYU should get the invite. Colorado is not leaving the Big 12. Colorado State, Boise State, Air Force, Fresno State, SDSU, Hawaii, and TCU are not Pac 10 material. All of those markets are too small. TCS (Dallas) is too far and it would make the Pac 10 alignment appear like a Conference USA. It’s Utah and BYU fellas.
All I saw was purple
Never happen crazi. The Pac-10 is about academics as much as it is about athletics, and I just don’t see BYU fitting in.
Plus, I think you overstate the added TV impact of BYU above and beyond Utah. Utah is closer to SLC, and while I’m sure the Mormon population in the state prioritizes BYU, there are plenty of Mormons at Utah as well. I’d guess there’s diminishing returns bringing in BYU on top of Utah in terms of TV – Colorado would be a bigger get. Boulder is not far from Denver, so I would imagine Colorado would bring a lot of TV sets from the Denver-Boulder region. And Colorado is a much better fit from an academic standpoint than BYU.
I just hope they put some careful thought into expansion. The Big 12 thought they were slick when they combined the Soutwest Conference and Big Eight. But as the Big 12 league has evolved, the Big 12 North has become “have nots”. All the top notch prep talent in Big 12 country is signing w/ Big 12 South programs- leaving Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas State to take the leftovers. All three (Huskers, Bufs, and Wildcats) have been dominating programs- but look mediocre as of today.
Not big on Utah and Colorado for expansion. Our league is very unique in that we have perfect traditional rivalries (USC vs. Ucla and Cal vs. Stanford) and perfect in-state rivalries as such:
Washington vs. Washington State
Oregon vs. Oregon State
Arizona vs. Arizona State
For that to continue we need one of the following:
UNLV vs. Nevada-Reno
Utah vs. BYU or Utah State
Colorado vs. Colorado State
Just don’t screw it up!
All I saw was purple
Hold on crazidawg
Rice-Eccles stadium on the University of Utah campus seats 45k and change. It has been running about 101% capacity. Plans for expansion of 10-15k are apparently underway, but no public announcement or earth turned. Appreciate the enthusiasm though.
Hold on again
The LDS religion accounts for about 2% of those who describe themselves as chiristians. There are more Jews in the US than “Mormons”.
This is bigtime – Kohler is the kind of high-level OL the UW needs to be getting every year if we want to get back to the top of the conference. I think Sark will have to keep on Kohler to keep him in the fold and sign next February, but the Dawgs are clearly the team to beat for him. Great job Sark, and big kudos to Nick Montana for getting the ball rolling on this one…
WOO! HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GO DAWGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by doubledeucedawg on Aug 24, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Husky Nation is...
…going bonkers tonight!!!!!!!!!!!!
by doubledeucedawg on Aug 24, 2009 9:37 PM PDT reply actions
Ted Miller ranking the Pac-10 Receivers
I just read Millers ESPN article ranking the Pac-10 receivers. What I found interesting was that he had UCLA at #3 with three experienced kids who had a total of 93 receptions last year and one touchdown, plus a freshman sensation. Washington, ranked #8, had three returning receivers with 100 total receptions and three touchdowns, plus a freshman sensation. Ad in a much more expereinced QB, and it makes one wonder if Miller really understood what he wrote.
Don’t get me wrong, I really like Miller, but………..
Same reason most of "them" have our linebackers rated in the bottom half
Sorry to say, but most of these sports writers have no backbone at all. The more I read predictions, the more I understand that they are nothing more than a look back at last year. Miller’s comment says it all, “They may well be better than eighth, but they’ve got to prove themselves.”
Why do think EVERYBODY has us picked to finish 9th, these guys are just regurgitating what happened last year. The majority of these guys aren’t brave enough to “risk” their reputation on an actual prediction, so every “preseason” position ranking, is really just the final position ranking of last year.
I vote we rename “preseason predictions” to “preseason regurgitations”.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
Experts
Until we start winning nobody is going to give us respect. What is written doesn’t really matter. What happens on the field is what matters. Start winning and people will write nice things about you. 0-12 was ugle so there are some dues to pay.
by John Berkowitz on Aug 25, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
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.
