The PAC 10 expansion groundswell

[UtahDan]

I never cease to be amazed that Dick Harmon was able to make a career as a journalist. I cringe with embarrassment whenever I read one of his articles.

Coincidence?!?! You decide.

[LA Ute]

Just went & watched the interview. I don't know what to make of Dick Harmon's comments until I hear Bill Marcroft's take on the situation.

Is Paul James still alive? His take would be fascinating.

[Uncle Ted]

Pac-10 growing pains... divisions to be created only for football:

*** The issue of dividing the league for football will be extremely prickly — much more difficult for Scott than the process of adding Colorado and Utah.

One Pacific NW school is dead-set on being paired with at least one of the SoCal schools, I’ve been told, and the California schools are loathe to be separated.

*** Dividing the league by the natural rivals (i.e., the Zipper Plan, proposed on the Hotline in February) is gaining traction.

The Zipper is viewed by some within league circles as the only option that could be begrudgingly accepted by everyone without infuriating anyone.

When I asked Scott, he said: “We’re looking at several ‘Zipper’ options.” (Of course, league officials are also looking at non-Zipper options.)

Update: As I should have noted initially (and readers mentioned below), an offshoot of the Zipper in which only the Bay Area and L.A. schools were split — one each with the NW schools, one each with the AZ and Mountain schools — could be/should be one of the scenarios under consideration.

It makes sense on several levels, but I’m not sure I like it as much as the full Zipper.

*** The California schools are absolutely committed to playing each other every year.

This could be accomplished in either a North-South or Zipper split — it would just take some adjustments to the scheduling formula.

[LA Ute]

Pac-10 growing pains... divisions to be created only for football:

Zipper, schmipper. If Utah is not playing USC and UCLA every year, I will be one bummed-out L.A.-based Ute fan.

[SoCalCoug]

Pac-10 growing pains... divisions to be created only for football:

I think a full zipper plan, where you play each team in your division every year (5 games), your rival every year (6 games), and two of the teams in the other division every year (8 games).

And example of the division splits would be this:

Division 1:

Washington
Oregon State
Stanford
USC
Arizona State
Colorado

Division 2:

Washington State
Oregon
Cal
UCLA
Arizona
Utah

To me, this makes the most sense. Eight conference games and four nonconference games.

[Hot Lunch]

I think a full zipper plan, where you play each team in your division every year (5 games), your rival every year (6 games), and two of the teams in the other division every year (8 games).

And example of the division splits would be this:

Division 1:

Washington
Oregon State
Stanford
USC
Arizona State
Colorado

Division 2:

Washington State
Oregon
Cal
UCLA
Arizona
Utah

To me, this makes the most sense. Eight conference games and four nonconference games.

I could see it playing out this way as well. This way every team will ultimately play games in So Cal 3 out of 4 years. The one problem with this is that it could end up splitting up rivalries. I could also see them going with this format and doing 9 conference games in order to keep the rivalry games every year.

[Portland Ute]

I could see it playing out this way as well. This way every team will ultimately play games in So Cal 3 out of 4 years. The one problem with this is that it could end up splitting up rivalries. I could also see them going with this format and doing 9 conference games in order to keep the rivalry games every year.

That would affect such rivalries as the UW/Oregon rivalry.

[Uncle Ted]

More on the Pac-10+2 growing pains... it seems who gets to play the LA teams every year is going to be a problem under the current revenue sharing model:

Since 1986, the participants in a televised Pac-10 football game divide 55 percent of the TV booty. The 10 schools share equally in the other 45 percent. There have been occasional challenges to the agreement, but mostly just a series of tweaks over the years to reflect new TV partnerships.

It's the way of the world in the Pac-10, where the imbalance in shared TV revenue, and TV's tilt toward the booming market in Los Angeles, creates an annual gap of as much as $4 million to $5 million between USC and a have-not school like Washington State.

Why is it an issue now? Assuming Washington and WSU end up in a division separate from USC and UCLA, they're going to meet those schools less frequently in football. When that happens, by definition they're going to be disadvantaged monetarily, because of the TV appeal of the L.A. schools.

On moving to a "share everything equal" revenue model:

In the past, whenever equal revenue sharing has been discussed in the Pac-10, USC athletic director Mike Garrett has said the Trojans are out of here if it ever happens. But the Troy Boys are staying after school right now, knuckles rapped by the NCAA, and it might be a good time to catch them on the subject.

Turns out Washington is a key player. It takes an 8-2 vote in the Pac-10 to implement financial policy, and the L.A. schools form a coalition. Moos remembers a steady stream of "no" votes to revenue sharing through the 1990s and beyond from UW athletic director Barbara Hedges, killing the notion.

"They were a pretty good 'have' in those days," Moos said.

But times changed, football turned bleak at the UW and shared money began looking good. Woodward favors revenue sharing, if the league will also do away with an archaic policy of traditional rivals sharing their football gate, which hurts the Huskies more than anybody.

"Essentially, I subsidize Wazzu to the tune of about 400 grand a year," Woodward said. "If we're going to share revenue with them, I want that to go away."

Now, with the expanded Pac-10, there are two new sheriffs in town. Well, deputies anyway. They have immediate voting rights on this issue, and presumably, they'll be of the equal-share persuasion. As always, it will take a 75 percent, 9-3 vote to change the formula, but that means the L.A. schools need to find not one, but two allies.

Why share, you ask. If you're sitting on oil in the Middle East, you don't funnel it to the sheikh across the border. Well, at some level, USC needs Washington State, if only for things like scheduling volleyball games and having somebody it can count on pounding in football.

[Portland Ute]

More on the Pac-10+2 growing pains... it seems who gets to play the LA teams every year is going to be a problem under the current revenue sharing model:



On moving to a "share everything equal" revenue model:

Thanks for posting that info.

I find it interesting and I am hopeful that full revenue sharing is agreed upon. It is interesting that the politics have shifted. It sounds as if the LA schools are going to have to find another program to help them fight off true revenue sharing. I don't see anyone else if UW isn't interested.

If that article is accurate, full revenue sharing will be a reality in the PAC10.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Thanks for posting that info.

I find it interesting and I am hopeful that full revenue sharingsocialism is agreed upon. It is interesting that the politics have shifted. It sounds as if the LA schools are going to have to find another program to help them fight off true revenue sharingsocialism. I don't see anyone else if UW isn't interested.

If that article is accurate, full revenue sharingsocialism will be a reality in the PAC10.

Fixed it for you.

[Babs]

Fixed it for you.

Amazing how all the Utes on the board have swung so far left all the sudden, in't it? From each according to his ability...

[Portland Ute]

Fixed it for you.

If only we were talking about nations, governments and individuals instead of athletics, businesses and voluntary participation.

[Top Ute]

Thanks for posting that info.

I find it interesting and I am hopeful that full revenue sharing is agreed upon. It is interesting that the politics have shifted. It sounds as if the LA schools are going to have to find another program to help them fight off true revenue sharing. I don't see anyone else if UW isn't interested.

If that article is accurate, full revenue sharing will be a reality in the PAC10.

They could keep the status quo for all I care, so long as we play only eight conference games. That would allow Utah the chance to schedule 8 home games in a year, and I'm guessing the revenue from being able to have a 7th and 8th home game would be enough to balance out any imbalance with revenue sharing.

[Portland Ute]

They could keep the status quo for all I care, so long as we play only eight conference games. That would allow Utah the chance to schedule 8 home games in a year, and I'm guessing the revenue from being able to have a 7th and 8th home game would be enough to balance out any imbalance with revenue sharing.

I don't care either, but at least admit that the best case scenario for Utah is true revenue sharing?

Surely you wouldn't propose that the U. oppose a move towards revenue sharing?

In the end, regardless of what happens, Utah will be in far, far, far better shape financially than it is currently.

[Hot Lunch]

They could keep the status quo for all I care, so long as we play only eight conference games. That would allow Utah the chance to schedule 8 home games in a year, and I'm guessing the revenue from being able to have a 7th and 8th home game would be enough to balance out any imbalance with revenue sharing.

This isn't happening. Maybe 7 on some years but they are going to be getting 8 homes game. Well they could if they are scheduling teams like Weber St. for those four games. Even Texas returns trips to Wyoming and Rice.