PAC 10 is now talking expansion..

[SeattleUte]

If either conference expands would they not want to break in to more than 1 market? Possibly taking Utah and Colorado to the Pac-10 so you get the SLC market and the Denver market?

Instead of taking both BYU and Utah and you only get 1 market.

Colorado is crucial. Utah needs a Pac 10 mate, and I don't know if there is any other logical one. 3D has questioned whether Colorado would move to the Pac 10. It's a valid question. I wonder why it hasn't happened if Colorado would go. But I think Colordo is destined for the Pac 10, and here are some quick thoughts.

1) Colorado has always seemed to me the odd school out in the Big 8/12. No natural rival; it's in the Rockies, not the Midwest.

2) Maybe this is my bias, but I feel more symbiosis between the Rockies and the West Coast than the Rockies and the Midwest. Utah is a Western state; that's organic. So is Colorado and California.

3) There is irrestitible glitz associated with the West Coast, particularly California. Texas is a populous state, but sorry, not too glitzy.

4) Pac 10 academics. There are plenty of very fine universities in the Big 12 (Texas and Kansas probably the leaders), but the Pac 10 is stronger and rightly proud of that image.

5) Colorado has fallen on some really hard times, and its basketball program is a disgrace. There's no excuse for its moribund basketball; even Washington has gotten its act together on the hardwoods, and USC is the Brazil of basketball. My point is that the other side of the fence may look really green to Colorado now.

6) If the dominos start to fall, the inertia will carry Colorado to the Pac 10 if that's what has to happen to make a Pac 12. Colorado can't resist the tide of history.

7) As 3D noted somewhat ironically, there is a lot of prcedence for BCS schools jumping conferences.

[LiveCoug]

We keep forgetting how horrible it would be if Utah were invited to the PAC 10 and BYU were left to hang out in the MWC. I break out into a cold sweat when I think about it.

[Shaka]

I can't wait for the dominos to fall so I can witness the meltdown of those who thought the entire decision on who goes where hinges on whether or not the school is a, "research institution".

It's going to come down to dollars like everything else in college football.

[Babs]

4) Pac 10 academics. There are plenty of very fine universities in the Big 12 (Texas and Kansas probably the leaders), but the Pac 10 is stronger and rightly proud of that image.

I realize that your comment was an aside, I don't know what you're basing this on, but I'd guess that by most metrics both A&M and Baylor rank behind Texas as the top tier of the Big 12. I'd be surprised if Kansas is regarded as highly as those three.

[TripletDaddy]

If either conference expands would they not want to break in to more than 1 market? Possibly taking Utah and Colorado to the Pac-10 so you get the SLC market and the Denver market?

Instead of taking both BYU and Utah and you only get 1 market.

The current make-up of the PAC seems to disprove the point of the question. I suppose it is possible that the PAC was dying for the Pullman, Corvalis, Eugene, and Tucson TV markets.

Better question...

As the PAC has gradually expanded, why have they bothered to pair each school with a sister school located in-state?

[beelzebabette]

As the PAC has gradually expanded, why have they bothered to pair each school with a sister school located in-state?

I really have no idea what I'm talking about here, but do strong in-state rivalries long-term help schools with keeping recruits from an area in that geographic area?

[SeattleUte]

I realize that your comment was an aside, I don't know what you're basing this on, but I'd guess that by most metrics both A&M and Baylor rank behind Texas as the top tier of the Big 12. I'd be surprised if Kansas is regarded as highly as those three.

You may be right.

[SeattleUte]

I can't wait for the dominos to fall so I can witness the meltdown of those who thought the entire decision on who goes where hinges on whether or not the school is a, "research institution".

It's going to come down to dollars like everything else in college football.

Why don't you read what the article linked at the top of this thread says about this issue.

It's funny how some of you think the world revolves around football. Guess what, it doesn't. Most of the world doesn't care about it, particularly the world of universities. The universities prize their academic reputations, which are not unrelated to conference affiliation, most of all. If you want to talk money, fine. As we pointed out in another thread, Michigan gets $1 billion per annum in research grants and contracts, based on its academic reputation and the standing of its professors. In contrast, its entire varsity sports budget is $59 mllion.

[TripletDaddy]

Why don't you read what the article linked at the top of this thread says about this issue.

It's funny how some of you think the world revolves around football. Guess what, it doesn't. Most of the world doesn't care about it, particularly the world of universities. The universities prize their academic reputations, which are not unrelated to conference affiliation, most of all. If you want to talk money, fine. As we pointed out in another thread, Michigan gets $1 billion per annum in research grants and contracts, based on its academic reputation and the standing of its professors. In contrast, its entire varsity sports budget is $59 mllion.

Here you go again, arguing against Utah's inclusion.

Quit being such a pessimist.

[SeattleUte]

Here you go again, arguing against Utah's inclusion.

Quit being such a pessimist.

you're a one trick pony.

[beefytee]

Why don't you read what the article linked at the top of this thread says about this issue.

It's funny how some of you think the world revolves around football. Guess what, it doesn't. Most of the world doesn't care about it, particularly the world of universities. The universities prize their academic reputations, which are not unrelated to conference affiliation, most of all. If you want to talk money, fine. As we pointed out in another thread, Michigan gets $1 billion per annum in research grants and contracts, based on its academic reputation and the standing of its professors. In contrast, its entire varsity sports budget is $59 mllion.

Where would Notre Dame's academic reputation be if it never had a football team? How about the size of its endowment?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The current make-up of the PAC seems to disprove the point of the question. I suppose it is possible that the PAC was dying for the Pullman, Corvalis, Eugene, and Tucson TV markets.

Better question...

As the PAC has gradually expanded, why have they bothered to pair each school with a sister school located in-state?

I think the Pac 10 brought in schools like Oregon State and Washington State out of necessity. Simply put, the pickings are slim on the West Coast for quality programs.

During the dissolution of the SWC, the Pac 10 tried to add Texas and Colorado so apparently they may not be that dedicated at keeping the "traveling partner" format going. I don't think that would keep the Pac 10 from adding Utah and Colorado.

A better question involves why would Colorado switch conferences. The main potential reason is TV money. The Big 12 has a horrific TV contract and I think they're locked in it for awhile (and supposedly Texas is the school blocking the formation of a Big 12 Network). The Pac 10 also has a crappy TV contract but they're set to renegotiate for the 2011 season. Colorado would be looking at more TV money. Secondarily, Colorado has been having a tough time recruiting in Texas, the main recruiting hotspot in the Big 12 and the reason is the lack of exposure due to placement in the Big 12 North. I think the four teams in the Pacific northwest would veto an expansion that kept the four California schools together and create a situation like that in the Big 12 South. Most likely, Cal and Stanford will be grouped with the four Pacific northwestern teams. So, Colorado would have better access to California recruits by virtue of playing USC and UCLA every year. From the sound of it, Colorado heavily considered the Pac 10's overtures back in the 90s but it was also one of the founders of the Big 12, so they were committed to that at the time. I think a move to a PAC 12 division of USC, UCLA, ASU, AZ, and Utah is a step up from the Big 12 North.

Because the Pac 10 is up for a new TV contract, the Pac 10 would probably like to get a bigger footprint. Like we both know, saying that Utah dominates the Salt Lake market is akin to saying that Rutgers dominates the NYC market. Nevertheless, I wonder whether ESPN/NBC-VS-Comcast understands this. Adding Utah and Colorado gives the perception that they're adding SLC and Denver (they actually are adding Denver).

[SeattleUte]

Where would Notre Dame's academic reputation be if it never had a football team? How about the size of its endowment?

Virtually all the schools with the biggest endowments don't even have DI football.

[SeattleUte]

Because the Pac 10 is up for a new TV contract, the Pac 10 would probably like to get a bigger footprint. Like we both know, saying that Utah dominates the Salt Lake market is akin to saying that Rutgers dominates the NYC market. Nevertheless, I wonder whether ESPN/NBC-VS-Comcast understands this. Adding Utah and Colorado gives the perception that they're adding SLC and Denver (they actually are adding Denver).

We will dominate it, once we're in the Pac 12. Moreover, we're looking forward to our new rivalry with COlorado. Denverites already have a big head of hate built up for SLC.

[ERCougar]

Virtually all the schools with the biggest endowments don't even have DI football.

Exactly...point being that endowments have nothing to do with football or athletic conferences.

Geez--are you really an attorney?