The Plains States and the Pac 10
by John Berkowitz on Feb 19, 2010 7:00 AM PST
104 comments
This is the final article for now in a series about probable Pac 10 expansion in the near future.
If the Big Ten grabs Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M and the Pac 10 snaps up Colorado it would signal the end of the Big 12 as a credible player in the BCS. The Big 12 could add schools such as BYU, TCU, even a Boise State and New Mexico to the mix to help fill the gap but the impact of losing the two top schools in Texas will be almost impossible to recover from in a world that counts TV sets to establish market share.
That is why Nebraska AD Tom Osborne said his school would be willing to listen to the Big Ten if they were interested in talking. Osborne has a very good idea of where this all could be going and expressing public interest in the Big Ten right now is a very smart thing to do if you are a Midwest school.
Nebraska is a great fit for the Big Ten. They have the academics, the history, the facilities, and a rabid fan base. They have everything that Texas has to offer except a huge TV market. Omaha ranks just below Spokane as the #76 TV market in the country. Who do you pick if you are the Big 10? Missouri, Nebraska, or the Texas schools? When you look at it from strictly a market perspective Nebraska is the odd man out in the equation.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State have a lot of athletic prestige but academically they are not traditional Big Ten/Pac Ten material. They do seem to fit the community college with a huge athletic complex mentality of the SEC pretty well. Oklahoma City ranks as the #45 TV market in the country and Tulsa chimes in at #61. Oklahoma also pulls in TV sets from neighboring Texas.
The problem for the Oklahoma schools is the SEC may not be interested in expanding right away even if the Big Ten grows to 16 teams. Long term TV contracts are already in place for the SEC so adding more members at this point has the potential to shrink the pie for the existing 12 members rather than add to it and we all know that is not how the game is usually played. The SEC won't be interested in expanding unless it creates more money immediately and is the Oklahoma TV market really that important without a Texas to go along with it in the mix?
Texas should be an SEC target but the school would much rather take the academic high road of joining the Big Ten or Pac 10. Another factor of course is the cuttthroat competition of the SEC. There are simply less big fish to contend with in the Big 10 and Pac 10. However if Texas decided it was interested in the SEC the powers that be would take that phone call.
Texas Tech is the poor step child of the Texas schools. Being cut off from Texas and Texas A&M relegates them to MWC type status if the Big 12 does not survive. Baylor is in the same boat. Baylor's location 90 minutes South of Dallas and fine academic standing might put them in a better position than Tech even though they have never been a sports powerhouse.
Kansas has been a basketball power ever since the first orb was tossed at a cut out peach basket. The football program while well supported has been historically mediocre. Kansas State has had some good years in the recent future but historically they have also struggled on the grid iron but like Kansas they fill the stadium. The Kansas schools are located close to the Kansas City TV market which rates #31 in the country and Wichita which rates #69.
Iowa State is a school with and excellent academic reputation that has also historically struggled athletically. Located in Ames, Iowa which is close to Des Moines they bring in a TV market which is ranked #71 in the country which is shared by Iowa.
Lets take a a quick look at what the Big 12 would look like after the Big Ten and Pac Ten are done feeding. You would still have a BCS conference but it would have the smallest TV market share of all the BCS conferences. I think the conference survives in a similar format to what I suggest below but once the Oklahoma schools leave...and it will be sooner than later....the remaining confederation will begin to fall apart.
Revamped Big 12
Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, (Brigham Young), (Boise State)
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, (Texas Christian), (New Mexico)
How does the Pac 10 fit into all this?
Well if they are interested in expanding beyond 12 teams in the future the only place to head is East of the Continental Divide. Colorado and Nebraska are natural rivals and while the Cornhuskers would prefer and be a better fit geographically with the Big Ten if they are the odd man out they would have no place to turn other than the Pac 10 or stick with a revamped Big 12. While Omaha/Lincoln is not a great TV market the school does have a lot of prestige and attracts a national following.
In the 1990's when the Pac 10 first considered expanding one of the schools they took a very close look at was Missouri. Kansas is not Missouri but its proximity to Colorado and Nebraska could make them a fit if they are left out in the cold.
I tend to think that Missouri is a shoe in for the Big Ten in almost every single scenario but If the Tigers somehow got left out of the Big Ten expansion push by the addition of the four Texas schools the Pac 10 would be very interested. The Tigers would bring the St Louis TV market which is ranked # 21 and Kansas City which is ranked at # 31. That would equate to basically the same amount of TV's as Denver and Salt Lake combined.
Pac 10 on The Prairie Model
Washington, Washington St, Oregon, Oregon St, California, Stanford, USC, UCLA
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri (or Iowa St)
0 recs |
104 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Over-expansion could ruin the sport
I’m in favor of expanding all BCS conferences to a 12 membership. But to expand beyond 12 is ludicrous!
12 is a well rounded number where you have two divisions of 6 associated members + a conference championship game. Not to mention but if all BCS conferences have 12 members the debate as to who is No.1 and No.2 shrinks.
I want the Pac 10 to expand to 12, but I am not in favor of expanding further out then the Rocky Mountains. Also I think it is important to continue our in-state rivalry theme. If Colorado is the preferred choice, then we need to consider Colorado State or Air Force to come along. I also like the possible addition of Utah. BYU is not the most popular choice to bring along and Utah State is too small. Yet if Colorado came and we got Utah that might work as a border rival. I don’t want to see Nebraska, Oklahoma, or any of the Texas schools in our league.
Something also to consider- how would expansion alienate the NW schools, particularly Washington? We rely on the state of California to recruit. If the Pac 10 does decide to expand, it had better do some critical research prior to just grab-bagging schools and placing them in a division. When the SWC and Big 8 dissolved and the Big 12 was formulated, no one gave “longevity” a thorough looksy. As the league has evolved, all the power is centrally located in the South, particularly between Oklahoma and Texas. The Big 12 has offered other BCS leagues an example of how NOT to divide a super league. You don’t divide the league geographically. You do and someone is left out looking in i.e. all the Big 12 North schools.
The best way to divide a league is to mesh the league together. Each in-state rival should be divided into seperate divisions. That way each Pac 10 state has other interest in the othere division. Example follows:
Pac 12 North Division
Washington (north of washington state)
Ucla (north of usc)
California (north of stanford)
Oregon State (north of oregon)
Arizona State (north of arizona)
Colorado (north of colorado state)
Pac 12 South Division
Washington State (south of washington)
USC (south of ucla)
Stanford (south of california)
Oregon (south of oregon state)
Arizona (south of arizona state)
Colorado State (south of colorado)
Note: all in-state rivalry games are scheduled for the last weekend of the regular season.
Each Pac 12 state is represented in both divisions, USC and Ucla are not in the same division competing for the same championship (it would make them happy), and finally no one is alienated geographically from the rest of the conference. The power of the league is balanced in theory with each Pac 12 state being represented in each division. Makes sense…
All I saw was purple
Colorado State?
Why would you want two team in the same state when you are trying to increase overall market share?
Why would you ever take CSU over Utah?
Finally what is the hang up with 16? It keeps all the natural rivarlies together and it means the existing schools get to go to California twice a year for raod games.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 19, 2010 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
He's Probably...
…thinking with the logic of the past. When having instate rivals (Washington, WSU, Oregon, Oregon State, Arizona, Arizona State) was the norm.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
Maybe...
…the past isn’t so bad. I hate to have money be the driver for all of this discussion. I like the fact that college football has it’s state and regional loyalties. I don’t think Texas fits into the Pac-10/West Coast culture. I can see where Mizzou would fit into the Big 10. Texas is my mind is more of a fit with either the other Big 12 teams or the SEC.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
The Hang up?
Well considering the SEC and Big 12 expanded to 12 members over a decade ago, the Big 10 offered membership to Penn State and the ACC robbed the Big East to form a 12 member league, meanwhile the Pac 10 has done nothing in terms of expansion.
What makes me think we are going to venture out on our own and attempt to create something that hasn’t been lucrative? Please keep in mind that both C-USA and the MWC attempted and failed to increase television markets. C-USA was sprawled all over the map and logistics proved that it was a bad decision for the league. Meanwhile the MWC thought they were so dam brilliant by bringing in a 16 team league, where the money had to be dispursed to all 16 members.
The Pac 10 has never been the sort to go out on a premise of ill-advised, uncertain ventures. Rather we have stayed mostly true to our rich, traditional values, principles, and beliefs and I think we will continue taking that approach with regards to a possible expansion plans. I think we will go out and offer two schools membership, like we did with Arizona and Arizona State.
And furthermore if we did take Colorado and Utah, over the years how comfortable will they feel wanted and needed in a Pac 10 conference where all the other schools in the leage have an in-state rival? Let’s stop and think of the possible ramifications of offering membership to schools that would have no in-state rival. Example: To many Nintany Lions, they feel like the unwanted step child in the Big 10, simply because they don’t have a natural rival in that particular league. Same could be said with Arkansas in the SEC. Take a second to look at the Colorado Buffs for a second. Do they have a bitter rival in the Big 12? Hell no, their bitter rival is with nonleauge foe the Colorado State Rams.
I’m ready to get current with the rest of the BCS schools and go to 12. Hell I’ve been ready for a decade now. But to strike out into the uncertainty with a 16 team membership, my vote is hell NO. I’ll talk about adding 2 schools, but won’t talk about adding 6- it would change the landscape of the sport and might change it for the worse- we don’t know how it will effect the sport so I would vote w/ a capital NO!
All I saw was purple
Colorado has an in-league rival
It’s name is Nebraska. PSU never really had an in-state rival because their other in-state programs are terrible.
You just can’t compare the Pac-10 to CUSA and the MWC. Expanding to Utah and Colorado if you’re going to 12 makes the most sense and if you want to hit the homerun, go to 16. Who’s to say CU and Utah can’t/won’t form a rivalry game? They had one in the past. The fact is, bringing CSU, a team that isn’t even in the Big 12, with Colorado will never fly. Their athletics are bad, facilities are worse, and academics aren’t anything special, either.
PSU
PSU had a rivalry with Pitt but when Pitt backed out years ago, Paterno nixed the rivalry. Paterno’s word is the law around here though many fans would love to see it spark back up.
PSU doesn’t need an in-state rival…they have Ohio State and Michigan and Iowa. Ohio State doesn’t have an in-state rival (Ohio and Youngstown don’t count) and they seem to do just fine. You do not need an in-state rival to have a rivalry…Red River Shootout anyone?! Utah and Colorado, I’m sure, can find away to make it a rivalry game if needed.
I will say that I am against any Pac 10 division that does not have UW and Oregon play every year though I could get over that if we add the Texas schools.
Utah and Colorado, I’m sure, can find away to make it a rivalry game if needed.
They used to play virtually every year from 1903-1962, so it would really be more resuming a rivalry than creating one. They were both in the Rocky Mountain Conference from its inception in 1910 until Colorado left in 1948, but continued to play every year until 1958, and then 2 more games in 1961 & 1962 before ending the rivalry.
I doubt it would be a rivalry of the same intensity as the current Pac-10 rivalries, but it would certainly grow over time.
At least 2 problems
1) The CA schools want to play each other every year. The zipper does not allow that.
2) What if local rivals each win their division? The rivalry game would be meaningless because there would be a rematch the next week in the CCG.
16 teams allow the old Pac8 to play each other every year and keeps all rivals together.
by RobberBaron on Feb 19, 2010 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
That's the beauty of it!
Do you honestly think USC and Ucla would want to play in the same division? Hell no they wouldn’t. Why would Ucla want to have to go thru USC to play in the Pac 12 Conference championship game or vice versa?
And how often would that occur? Historically we’ve had great runs of Pac 10 programs going to the Rose Bowl. I think only Washington and USC has gone consecutively over the course of time- that doesn’t happen too often.
You guys are living in a dream world if you think the Pac 10 is seriously considering adding 6 more teams to make it a 16 member league. Hell we’d be fortunate to get 12 fellas. Our new commish wants to expand, but it isn’t very popular with the schools and the current league schools have veto power. Stop living in a dream world…
All I saw was purple
I don't fear my rival...
… even if Cal has had our number recently. If Big Game doesn’t get me to the CCG or Rose Bowl, I want to play spoiler to Cal getting there. That is easier done with both of us in the same division.
12 teams leads to split-up rivals, or splitting up Cali, or alienating the NW from yearly trips to LA and the Bay.
I say either go to 16 or stay at 10. 12 is just awful.
by RobberBaron on Feb 19, 2010 11:51 AM PST up reply actions
I can live with 12 if we can't get Texas
The only way I see us going to 16 is eating the Texas schools.
At 12, you take the two newbies (CU and Utah), put them in the North division (with WA schools and OR schools), and play one from each pairing in the other division every year.
Different concern
I don’t like having only 8 conference games. 4 OOC is cowardly, unless against quality competition. I especially hate playing 1-AA teams.
10 teams is awesome for the round robin.
16 teams allows 9 conference games, 2 being inter-divisional. Cycling through the other division would take 4 years.
12 teams with 4 OOC games means playing more patsies. Yawn.
by RobberBaron on Feb 19, 2010 12:12 PM PST up reply actions
Valid concern
Then again, you also get a conference championship and more money from it by having at least 12 teams. Who you schedule is up to you, but I’d probably rather schedule one more crap game knowing how much money is coming in due to the expansion.
In the 12 team case, cycling through the other division takes 2 years, so there’s that at least. It just depends on how your school wants to schedule, I guess.
Sorry, but every other major conference plays 8 (or less) conference games. Why should we continue to put ourselves at a disadvantage?
With a 16-team league, you play 8 conference games – your fellow 7 division foes and 1 from the other division.
It sucks, but it’s also reality. I liked the fact that the UW had been one of the few schools to never schedule a division 1-AA school, but the college football landscape has changed. Adapt or fall behind are the choices…
And let’s also remember that college football has changed over time. Take a look at the schedules teams played in the first few decades of the 20th century – lot’s of patsies on their padding schedules.
We aren't the SEC
Honestly, Alabama can sell out a stadium to play Chattanooga, but our programs probably can’t sell out a game against SacState. Just for that reason a conference game may be more attractive.
If 16 teams means 8 conference games, I don’t want that either.
by RobberBaron on Feb 19, 2010 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
Then you're leaving money on the table
If the conference stays at 10 just to keep that round robin, we will fall severely behind and be in big trouble. I know it’s against the norm and is a new concept, but we have to adapt here. It’s the way college football is moving and like it or not, the conference needs to move that way as well.
I can live with eight conference games but would prefer if everyone was playing nine and that they couldn’t schedule lower division schools.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 19, 2010 12:30 PM PST up reply actions
Yours is probably the best attitude to have
It just saddens me to see Pac10 fans accepting or even hoping for fewer quality games. I hate the race to the bottom.
by RobberBaron on Feb 19, 2010 12:42 PM PST up reply actions
Increased profile with CCG
Would the spotlight of winning a CCG not offset the added conference losses? I guess that might only be true for the conference champ, but not the rest of the bowl-bound teams.
Why are voters and computers not savvy enough to take this into account when ranking teams?
by RobberBaron on Feb 19, 2010 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
It shouldn't hurt
One way to look at it was how the SEC pulled it off this year. Florida and Bama didn’t play each other until the CCG, with both getting bids. In that regards, not playing a round robin makes it easier to pull off being a 2-bid BCS game conference.
I guess you are right
I am allowing my hate for the BCS to cloud my judgement.
But gaming the BCS system at the expense of more quality games just feels dirty, you know?
To that end, does conference realignment make playoffs more or less likely? I really want playoffs.
by RobberBaron on Feb 19, 2010 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
I agree it does feel dirty
And I hate the BCS, but at this point there’s so much money in the BCS it’s going to be hard to dump it.
The only way I could see the playoffs happening is if, like John mentioned, there are 4 16 team conferences. Then it would see harder to split up BCS bids, in my mind (2 per big conference and 2 at large?).
16-team conferences and playoffs
There may not be enough good teams out there to have this appear fair, but I would love 6 auto-bid 16-team conferences and 2 at-large. (Maybe 5 AQ and 3 at-large). That’s 8 spots for (96+x) teams or (80+x) teams. x is the number of independents. That seems like a good ratio to me. What I don’t want is every AQ conference getting 2 auto-bids, because that may neuter the CCGs. In any case, no playing lower-division teams allowed.
I've refined my pipe dream
5 16-team conferences:
Pac (adding mostly from the BigXII)
Big10 (adding from BigXII and Big East)
SEC (adding from BigXII and ACC)
ACC (adding from Big East)
MtWAC (union of those leftover in the west)
Structure of the playoffs:
First Round
- Rose Bowl (Pac v. Big10)
- Sugar Bowl (SEC v. at-large no. 1)
- Orange Bowl (ACC v. at-large no. 2)
- Fiesta Bowl (MtWAC v. at-large no. 3)
Final Four
- All 3 games hosted in one city
- Bidding to host open to any city
I think our conference would often land an at-large bid. A harder path for our champion is the price of keeping our Rose Bowl tradition.
I LOVE IT!!!!
It has the most important aspect of sports, win or go home!!
Win your division or shut up and go home.
Win your conference or shut up and go home.
Win Your BCS Bowl game or shut up and go home.
Win Your Final Four game or . . .
Win the Championship or . . .
It even gives lower tier conferences and Notre Dame there shot at winning it all. It’s perfect, where do I sign up??
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Thanks!
I hope that if such a system ever comes there will be a selection committee for the three at-large spots. Coaches have a conflict of interest and poll voters have shown themselves to be less than adequate for the job. Ideally there would be no other top-division conferences, with about 40 teams relegated to 1-AA. If they remain, I hope the committee members treat the neo-Boises fairly.
Force everybody to join a conference.
8 conferences averaging 15 teams each, and you get the magic 120 teams. Sorry Notre Dame might not like it, but it would make for a great playoff system and keeps the current bowl system.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
I think the landscape is changing enough, and Notre Dame is far enough away from their glory days, that they may soon be forced to join a conference for their football program. I have my doubts they’ll be able to get the same kind of exclusive deal down the road that pays better than joining the Big-10.
They're good for at least another 5 years, so it may be a while until they join a conference
Convincing them to join up anywhere is going to be like pulling teeth, I bet
I Agree With...
…cougfan. That pot of gold is not something they want to share with anyone else. There’s a reason why they’re the most profitable football program in the nation.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
NO it's not!
Looking back to my proposed Pac 12 Conference post, it clearly states that each in-state (natural) rival would play the last weekend of the regular season. So in that regard Stanford would be able to play the spoiler if Cal was in the hunt for the Pac 12 Championship or even a chance to play for Roses.
All I saw was purple
Align it geographically
Lining it up by splitting everyone up just doesn’t add anything to the picture
You have to look at expansion as it would/could reflect in the future
The Big 12 didn’t look into the future. They aligned their league geographically and at first glance the league looked to be the power conference of all power conferences. Boy how times have changed down there huh?
All the power for the last 8 or so years has been in the Big 12 South and it appears that trend is here to stay. The Big 12 North just doesn’t have the same resources of the Big 12 South. Nebraska and Colorado cannot compete with Oklahoma and Texas based on location. Hell even Oklahoma State has passed up Nebraska and Colorado in recruiting. To divide a hypothetical Pac 12 by region could and will alienate the NW schools. If you put all the South based Pac 10 schools in a South division (Arizona, ASU, USC, Ucla)- who do you think will have the upper hand in recruiting the hotbed SoCal kids? Surely it won’t be Oregon, Washington, and Oregon State. That is exactly what happened when the Big 12 was formed. Texas kids aren’t even considering Nebraksa or Colorado.
Dividing the league by region would ultimately destroy our league. And why the hell would we want Texas anyway? Sure it would be great for a big tv market, but we are in the business to win Pac 10 championships. Do we really want another powerhouse in our league to have to go thru? Let’s be honest with ourselves. We are a west coast league, with a terrible tv deal due to time zones. The best we can hope for is to expand west of the Rockies and the two best, most logical choices thus far are Utah and possibly Colorado.
I’m done chatting about this. It’s rediculous to even agrue about. Our new commish is contemplating the possibility of expanding but our schools have not warmed up to it. The schools have ultimate veto power and they will probably use it if the commish targets the wrong schools.
All I saw was purple
How do you know the schools dont want it
Simply, any way you align it, you’re only playing in so cal twice every 4 years with a twelve team league. The presidents will take CU, and have tried before, and would take utah I feel
by cougfan on Feb 21, 2010 10:19 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Respectfully you don’t have a clue about what they are warm about.
Since Scott Woodward is now talking 16 teams it looks like things are moving that way.
When an AD gives it credence and says the conference is talking to Texas and Texas A&M you better listen.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 21, 2010 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
Colorado and Colorado State
Colorado State is in Ft Collins
Colorado is in Boulder
Boulder is SW of Ft Collins
So Colorado State is NORTH of Colorado.
by Jack Anderson Jr on Feb 19, 2010 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
Completely disagree. A 12-team conference makes for scheduling nightmares in trying to keep all the existing teams happy. Whereas going to 16 teams allows for much more natural and traditional scheduling – not to mention bringing in some huge TV markets with the Texas schools and boosted BCS prestige.
Think of a 16-team Pac-10 like this – it would in reality be a loose confederation between the old Pac-8 and a new “midwest-8”. This would make scheduling much easier, as all the traditional Pac-8 schools can play each other every year (eliminating the concern the NW schools would have of being cut off from SoCal) and the Mountain and Central time zone schools will primarily play each other. Travel is not much of an issue in this scenario, nor are time zone issues. The Arizona schools would lose out on playing regularly in LA, but they recruit a fair amount in Texas, and playing annually in Texas would boost their recruiting there.
Adding those schools would also expand the Pac’s bowl affiliations and most likely bring in better bowls to the mix.
Most importantly, it would be a much more attractive conference for TV deals and creating a new Pac TV network. Adding Utah and Colorado would boost revenues slightly, but adding the Texas schools and Nebraska or Kansas would be a much bigger boost.
I don't think they can go to 16 right now
So 12 is going to have to happen if they want to expand. Going to 16 is contingent on another conference folding and is something we just don’t know about. Going to 12 and stepping toward 16, on the other hand, would probably work. I say this because we need to expand NOW in order to line it up with the TV deal and I don’t think Texas is going to make a decision by July.
12 doesn’t hurt you that bad. You’re still in California every other year playing and you’re still playing one of the NorCal and SoCal schools every year. I think it’s a stepping stone, but in order to maximize any future TV deals, or even add a pac-10 network, they need to add at least CU and Utah now
Yes, it may have to go in stages. But if the Big-10 poaches from the Big-12, the dominoes could start falling very quickly. Or the Pac-10 could be proactive and start the dominoes falling themselves. Texas is the big prize, and both conferences (Big-10 & Pac-10) would love to have them.
And I think you're seeing the Pac-10 start the poaching by going after CU
It may take a nibble or two before you can get Texas to jump ship. I’d rather we’re kicking the dominoes then the Big-10, at least.
Hadn't heard about that
At this point it seems like both conferences are trying to eat through the Big 12 to get to Texas
Man, that Eastern division would be really weak in football
Would be pretty tough in basketball with Kansas and Arizona though.
Pacific Standard Time?
I think other then a TV deal, the other obsticle in expansion is the timezone. Are the plains states going to want to play at 7:30pm PST?
I’m already ruling out all of Texas and all of Oklahoma. The only Big 12 school that might fit is Colorado.
Keep in mind that our Saturday night kickoff games begin at 7:30pm PST. In neigboring Utah that kickoff is actually at 8:30pm MST. Let’s keep it real, we aren’t going to get the Texas and Oklahomas. Schools that consider our league will have to be able to side step the Pacific Standard Time thing and that might be just as big of a hurdle as the tv deal. The Longhorns and Sooners and the rest of the Big 12 South crowd are not coming out west- it makes no sense what so ever. Texas might be listening to the Big 10, but they are not leaving in the same fashion as Notre Dame is not joining a league. The money the Longhorns and Irish get is enough for them to stay put.
All I saw was purple
Well, if you expand to 16
The plains schools wouldn’t really be playing the pacific schools, so tinezone wouldn’t be much of a factor.
Once again Crazi
That is why the only reason it would work is going to a 16 team league.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 19, 2010 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
We can dream (as fans) but let's be real
The Pac 10 is not going to venture out like the Conference USC experiment nor the MWC experiment. The Pac 10 is a far west league, it’s a big city league, and has strong ties to in-state rivaling schools. I think those concepts will not be breached just for expansion. I think our new commish is a smart cookie and will offer membership to two schools that make fundamental sense. Back in 78 both Arizona and Arizona State were not considered big time programs, but after moving up into the Pac 10 those two programs have become well-established members of the league. I don’t see why that can’t happen with Utah, but the hold up with Utah is who would come with them if the intention is to continue our in-state rival theme. On the other hand, Colorado has all the resources at its disposal to compete now with the Pac 10 schools.
We can dream as fans in regards to expansion, but I firmly believe that it is in our best interest to continue our traditions we’ve set for our league.
All I saw was purple
As someone that's written a lot about the Big Ten expansion plans...
… I completely believe that the Pac-10’s tradition of having in-state rivals is a product of a by-gone era. If I were running the Pac-10, I would optimally want the 2 new schools to bring in 2 separate markets (unless you grab a massive area like the Texas market). It’s shocking to me that any Pac-10 partisan would rather have Colorado State as opposed to Utah simply to give CU an in-state rival. This doesn’t make sense either from a competitive standpoint as a sports fan or a financial standpoint (where CU alone grabs its home-state market and Utah brings in a separate market). Colorado and Utah can effectively be the “Rocky Mountain” duo (and thereby possibly get the Pac-10 into that entire region – Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, etc.). It would be a huge mistake to get hung up on in-state pairings, especially when I don’t think that Colorado State adds much at all.
Hey Frank
They don’t call him Crazi for nothing.
To be fair everyone needs to walk through all the scenarios to figure out that 16 is probably the best way to go and that other than Texas you want to go with seperate markets.
CSU adds nothing really…poor facilities…probably the third to 4th team in that market.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 19, 2010 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
It's all about the Apple Pie
I feel as if I am the only one on this thread thinking with his head. You guys are really going above and beyond how the league feels in regards to expansion. Sure grabbing television markets is ideal and could be proven to be lucrative. But is money the only thing that drives the Pac 10? You have to look at the capital gains in both revenue sharing and the competitive edge. As it stands we share our bowl revenue with only 10 schools. The SEC, Big 12, and ACC share it with 12 members (smaller pieces of the pie).
You guys are beating a dead horse, talk of 16 is nonsense because our schools would vote it down in a heartbeat.
All I saw was purple
The pie is huge comparitively
We’re not sharing the same sized pie here at all. Adding the two largest TV markets (if we go to 12), makes the pie so much bigger. In terms of revenue sharing it’s a darn good deal
Well then if it fails, then we can label it as the Pac 10 Experiment. It is completely nonsense to continue hashing out the league expanding to 16- the current schools won’t even consider it. Again we’ll be fortunate if the schools vote yes on expanding 2.
All I saw was purple
It's been mentioned before
But the trip (by flight) between CU and Utah is the same as the trip between WSU and UW. It can be worked as a pairing.
It is an interesting idea, but
Given that there must be a unanimous vote to expand, I don’t think it could happen.
Peaty
Tough to say…Stanford is always the wild card.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 19, 2010 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
Because if the big Ten goes to 16...
Everyone will follow.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 19, 2010 12:23 PM PST up reply actions
Being the second mover...
… may leave us with poor expansion options if 16 becomes the new norm and Texas is taken.
by RobberBaron on Feb 19, 2010 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly. Texas is potentially the biggest prize out there (other than Notre Dame). Big-12 fans might not like to admit it, but their conference is vulnerable to poaching, and Texas is the lynch pin.
This, of course depends on Texas being smart enough to see the writing on the wall. Otherwise the second mover may paradoxically have an advantage.
Yep – they already have their own network and the associated revenues, in addition to the geographic advantage. But if the Big-10 doesn’t take some additional rivals for Texas and/or A&M, that could be the advantage the Pac-10 needs to grab them first.
John, we didn't follow when everybody went to 12 for pete's sake!
All I saw was purple
shifting how we think about conferences
I think one of the things that should be considered when discussing a potential 16-team super Pac conference is how we think about such a conference. I think in a lot of ways, what such a league would be is less a “singular” conference in the way we currently think of them and more of a loose affiliation of two conferences. If you have a division of the old Pac-8 and a new division of a Southwest-8 that are linked into one conference, you could schedule it in a way similar to baseball with the AL & NL – all AL teams play each other and they also play a few interleague games with NL teams.
It would be a marriage of convenience – adding a championship game for the Pac schools and greater TV revenue and overall BCS prestige for all of the involved schools.
Pac schools would only play 1 or 2 Southwest schools per year in football (and 2 in basketball), so they’d remain a bit of a novelty – kind of like a regularly rotation out of conference team. The Pac division would have their own identity, different from the Southwest division. But the alliance would benefit all.
It would be a bold, forward-thinking step.
Great point. Just one danger here.
The TV clout of such a conference depends in part on fans caring about the other division. Fans in LA must start to care about Colorado v. Texas because it is a conference game. Fans in Houston must start to care about UCLA v. Stanford because it is a conference game. That is where TV money $$$ synergy will come from. So, we need a perception of being more than a loose affiliation of two mini-conferences. That is part of why I want at least 2 inter-divisional games.
I don’t pretend to know the intricate dynamics of TV advertising, TV markets, cable network subscriptions, etc. I would think that it’s less about Pac and Southwest fans caring about the other and more about the two groups negotiating as a single entity though – strength in numbers. And such a grouping would have impressive TV markets.
I think there would be a natural curiosity that would grow between the two different fanbase groups – you’d want to scout the teams in the other division in anticipation of the conference championship game. But I don’t know that you’d need a rabid following of both divisions by all fans for it to pencil out for TV execs.
I don't necessarily think it matters how much one division cares about the other
In a two eight team division, each is going to have their fair share of large markets, which is attractive enough for TV execs.
For example, the old pac-8 has Cali and Seattle. The new division has all of Texas, Denver, SLC, and Arizona. Each has their pro’s market wise and don’t have to be tied in to be attractive for a TV deal.
But don't we want more than the sum of the current contracts?
Yes, consolidated bargaining power is important to squeeze more out of the TV execs, but if we get all fans to care about about both divisions that is actual added value. With more mouths to feed, we want to create and squeeze value out of everything.
It's negligible
The contracts are going to be based on market shares, which we would have an advantageous position in many large markets. If we negotiate as a whole, which we obviously would, it won’t matter who views what or what the ratings are. The TV contracts and a potential pac-10 network are the money makers and thus the expansion talk. It’s more about getting into the market and not worrying about what other markets are watching.
Who cares about what won’t drive up the money, simply being in those markets will drive up the money in contract negotiations, in my opinion.
Exactly
You are right on, as usual. With a super conference (16 teams) winning the division is a big accomplishment, much like winning the conference title now. Then you have a conference title game and winning the super conference would be a very big accomplishment.
Anybody who wants to see a playoff system should be excited about the idea of 16 team conferences. If they happen they will make the road to playoffs very, very simple.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
PAC -8, Big 8, SWAC Hybrid - could create a super conference
The hands down best approach would be to create a super conference. This would inlcude 8 teams in the Pacific Division and 8 in the Plains Division.
The Pac 10 would have to boot the non producers, the ones who don’t bring TV revenue, academics, or anything to athletics – I’ll let everyone speculate on those schools.
The big 12 would have to boot 4 – Baylor, Texas Tech, K-State, and probably OSU, but that could be debateable. The two divisions would play each other in a conference championship. I think you want to schedule so you play 2 teams from the other division every year.
That would blow apart the SEC. Imagine – USC, Texas, Oklahoma, UW, UCLA, Standford, Nebraska….WOW!
How cool would that be
by Fighting Husky on Feb 20, 2010 11:48 AM PST reply actions
You boot Baylor and Tech, you're not getting Texas
Nobody’s getting booted, especially considering who the Pac-8 was
It doesnt matter
The only leverage the pac ten has over the big ten would be our ability to woo the legislature by taking all at once. Remember, you’re not selling just Texas on the idea, you’re selling the lawmakers too.
by cougfan on Feb 20, 2010 1:29 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Agreed
The only way and the best way to get Texas is to invite all 4 major Texas Schools.
Imagine – USC, Texas, Oklahoma, UW, UCLA, Standford, Nebraska….WOW!
Imagine never winning a conference title EVER again!! Schools like WSU, OSU, Oregon and Stanford would never see the Rose Bowl EVER again!! I’m all for a super conference, but every conference needs a few powerhouses and a few pansies. If you put too many top programs into one conference, somebody must lose, the loser eventually turns into an average or less program, it’s the nature of sports.
The key to making the Pac10 the best conference is having the right mix of schools, and the right TV markets. A strong conference must have a few juggernauts (USC, Texas), a few very strong programs (UW, UCLA, Texas A&M), a bunch of very good programs and a few pansies (WSU, Baylor).
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
You really cant call anyone pansies
It goes in cycles in all sports. We’ve been up and down the last decade, uw has as well.
The beauty of college is that the power can shift quickly
by cougfan on Feb 20, 2010 2:50 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Hate to pick on your cougars but . . .
WSU has a 48% all time winning record, the best winning percentage, by far, was from 1926-1943!!
Mike Price the Great, barely had won half of his games, with a 83-78 record at WSU.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
disagree
Did you ever think you’d see the day the Huskies would go winless? Things happen
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Feb 20, 2010 3:17 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Ya, but . . .
The UW is a strong program that is a consistent winner. 10 years in the grand scheme of things is a pretty small sample size. WSU is a 3-5 win per year program, UW is a 7-9 win per year program. History has plenty of stats to prove my point.
The SEC has Vanderbilt, the Big12 has Baylor, the Big10 has Indiana, and the Pac10 has WSU, all are historically weak programs.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Agree With Lear...
…wsu winning streak was an anomaly, as was UW’s losing streak.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
I wouldn't say that Lear
WSU had a nice run only a few years ago and it can happen again.
by John Berkowitz on Feb 20, 2010 8:16 PM PST up reply actions
Exactly
It was a run, a nice short run. Over the course of 50 years WSU has been a below average team. Every conference has stronger teams and weaker teams, it’s the nature of the beast.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
I still wouldnt say pansy
The fun is having the underdog. Why boot them? And things can change fast if a team gets money backing (see:oregon)
by cougfan on Feb 20, 2010 10:20 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Don't get me wrong,
I was having a little fun at your expense (calling cougs pansies), but I have never wanted to get rid of WSU. It is very fun to have underdogs, my only point is that every conference must have strong teams, and not so strong teams, its the nature of sports.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
With their location
The feeling is they can pick and choose from the surrounding leagues. They could offer all 4, but more likely they’d try to expand different ways
by cougfan on Feb 21, 2010 10:15 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
NANNY NANNY
NANNY. MY CONFERENCE IS BIGGER THAN YOUR CONFERENCE. WHO CARES?CERTAINLY NOT THE FANS WHO WILL BE THE LOSERS.
Actually expanding to 16 makes the league smaller
What youa re doing is going with two eight team leagues which is a better way to go about it anyway…
by John Berkowitz on Feb 21, 2010 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
