I'm so tired of this topic

[RockyBalboa]

Especially since I'm in the "I'll believe it when I see it camp".....but here's a nice post on PAC-10 expansion.

Also forgive me for linking a Cougarboard post.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=4917550

[TripletDaddy]

I can't link to cougarboard anymore. It takes forever to load and load and then times out. maybe that is a sign?

rock, Can you link the article here?

[RockyBalboa]

I can't link to cougarboard anymore. It takes forever to load and load and then times out. maybe that is a sign?

rock, Can you link the article here?

Well it's just a post, not an actual article. I just tried getting on to link it and couldn't get on the website. It must be down again.

[LA Ute]

I can't link to cougarboard anymore. It takes forever to load and load and then times out. maybe that is a sign?

rock, Can you link the article here?

It basically summarizes a conversation between the Stanford AD and a group of Stanford alums. The AD said, in response to a direct question, that BYU and Utah made sense geographically as expansion schools, but that TV money is the real driver for all PAC-10 expansion talk. Then the CB poster (not the Stanford AD) surmised that BYU would have a chance of getting in if the PAC-10 can be convinced that even outside the State of Utah, BYU has lots of TV sets tuned to its games.

[SeattleUte]

It basically summarizes a conversation between the Stanford AD and a group of Stanford alums. The AD said, in response to a direct question, that BYU and Utah made sense geographically as expansion schools, but that TV money is the real driver for all PAC-10 expansion talk. Then the CB poster (not the Stanford AD) surmised that BYU would have a chance of getting in if the PAC-10 can be convinced that even outside the State of Utah, BYU has lots of TV sets tuned to its games.

Not a chance. Stanford hates BYU.

[TripletDaddy]

It basically summarizes a conversation between the Stanford AD and a group of Stanford alums. The AD said, in response to a direct question, that BYU and Utah made sense geographically as expansion schools, but that TV money is the real driver for all PAC-10 expansion talk. Then the CB poster (not the Stanford AD) surmised that BYU would have a chance of getting in if the PAC-10 can be convinced that even outside the State of Utah, BYU has lots of TV sets tuned to its games.

thank you for taking the time to type that.

Similarly, my apologies for making you take the time to type that.

[YOhio]

Not a chance. Stanford hates BYU.

They might hate BYU, but they'll love our grubby Mormon money!

[SeattleUte]

They might hate BYU, but they'll love our grubby Mormon money!

Stanford has a 15 billion dollar endowment. How much TV money would BYU add?

[YOhio]

Stanford has a 15 billion dollar endowment. How much TV money would BYU add?

They won't disclose the actual numbers, but I bet it's a ton.

[TripletDaddy]

Stanford has a 15 billion dollar endowment. How much TV money would BYU add?

you have a one-track mind. All you care about is the size of one's endowment. why don't you stop being a sicko and talk about something else for a change?

[statman]

The thing that the CBers are missing about incremental TV revenue is obvious - they'd get it beacuse of two new TV markets (SLC & Denver would be my guess, with Utah and Colorado being the pick-ups), but mostly, they'd get more money because of a CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. Those games are worth as much as a second tier bowl game - in total $10-$15 million in revenue. Gate receipts alone in a well attended game can be in the area of $6-8 million. And unlike bowl games, teams don't spend like drunken sailors when they play in a championship game. The gate & TV revenue from a Championship Game + extra revenue from two new markets (SLC is # 30 in the US, and Denver is # 21) + revenue for the option of broadcasting the games of two new teams would bring in WAY MORE than $11 million dollars to the PAC-10.

Also, there's the little issue of the MWC pushing its way into the BCS. If the PAC-10 could pick off one of the top MWC teams, they might be able to keep the MWC out. But then the MWC could add BSU and still likely get in. But if the Big XII took BYU to replace Colorado, that'd be two of the top three MWC teams out of the equation, and even with BSU (& TCU), the MWC's case would be pretty weak. So expansion would not only add revenue for the PAC-10, it would also be part of a strategy that would obviate the BCS from splitting it's money 7-ways instead of 6. And both BYU and Utah would make it to BCS leagues...

[Hot Lunch]

Stanford has a 15 billion dollar endowment. How much TV money would BYU add?

The expansion is about sports and the money that can be made and put back into the athletic departments from the revenue a SPORTS Television contract can bring them. PAC 10 expansion has zero to do with academics.

[byu71]

you have a one-track mind. All you care about is the size of one's endowment. why don't you stop being a sicko and talk about something else for a change?

Wasn't it SU that said ones AVatar speaks volumes. I don't think SU is concerned about how much one is endowed with.

[Portland Ute]

The expansion is about sports and the money that can be made and put back into the athletic departments from the revenue a SPORTS Television contract can bring them. PAC 10 expansion has zero to do with academics.

Bologna. Baloney. Ah...forget it.

What I am trying to say is that it comes down to revenue, but even if there were 10 million people living in Idaho, Boise State would not be in the PAC10. Their academics are laughable. They are, essentially, Dixie College. A 4 year "JC" with a solid football program.

You better believe that academics are part of the equation.

[Hot Lunch]

You better believe that academics are part of the equation.

You are right, saying zero is over stated. They aren't going to bring in a school with laughable academics. There are a couple of schools that have really good academics that will be considered.

When the group of schools that have good academics have been decided on and are going to be considered for PAC 10 expansion, it is then that the talks will be 100% about sports and sports revenue and not about academics.