Oh, I'm sorry, are you done yet?

I sort of zoned out after the 2nd sentence.

;D If you are from the deep south, MSU is Mississippi State (even before Memphis State became U of Memphis); and you are elsewhere, particularly in the Great Lakes region, MSU is Michigan State.
::) USC --- That means University of South Carolina if one is in the Carolinas or Georgia--elsewhere, it is the University of Southern California that first comes to mind.
And CAROLINA --- both Univ. of South Carolina and the Univ. of North Carolina use it. Sports commentators liberally refer to North Carolina as Carolina. However, in South Carolina and perhaps much of the SEC, Carolina means South Carolina.
Schools own their formal names. People are at liberty to use initials or shortened versions of a name as they choose. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (noting more than one UNC campus), may not like the CAROLINA depiction on the Univ. of South Carolina jerseys. So be it, it is a shortened version of their name too.
Agree, those informed with sports can figure out the abbreviations from the context in which they are used. If it suggests multiple implications, the writer should more extensively write out the name of the school or not use abbreviations.

Back to the topic of this thread:

Hawaii would be a school the PAC 10 would consider if expanding. However, the distance factor is a prime issue. The question is, would Hawaii's merits and potential contributions outweigh the time and travel costs involved, particularly with olympic type sports which the PAC 10 very much values? The PAC 10 may find closer schools, such as the University of Utah, that may fit their purposes more closely. That said, the PAC 10 does not have an abundance of close by candidates that do not carry with them certain negatives as to fitting in with the conference.

No, they wouldn't... save for a four-fold population explosion on the islands based from populations that know what football is.

The Pac-10 can afford the travel. They can't afford to subsidize schools for the sake of going to 12 when they're trying to compete against other major conferences for network television money.

Therefore, the Pac-10 will, um, continue to work diligently for the erasure of the conference championship game allowance in the NCAA. ;D

Pounder, if, and that simply is an if, since there is no indication the PAC 10 is seeking to expand, Hawaii would be a school to "consider", not necessarily "picked". The PAC 10 would be foolish not to ponder all the possibilities in the REGION, and I use that term liberally. It may be Hawaii would be dismissed very readily for some of the stated or implied reasons.
It borders on a contradiction, if on the one hand to suggest the PAC 10 has loads of money for their travel resources; and then to imply they are averse to further revenue sharing. Certainly, any choices made for any potential expansion would fully examine whether a particular school is adding to the pot or will be one that diminishes the share each is currently receiving.
It is obvious the PAC 10 is not, and may never be, at the point of having a fb championship game. With Southern Cal just having a shared title and an outright title the past two years, the attitude may be "if it is not broke. don't fix it". The expansion motive is not there currently.

When conference officials, university presidents and ADs, discuss expansion, frequently off the record in conference rooms as an off agenda item, the focus is from a practical angle-----scheduling preferences----do we want this team as a regular competitor in the spectrum of sports? Is expansion something needed and can be absorbed? How accessible are the prospects? How does it affect attendance here and there? Also very importantly, is this a University that can be worked with, cooperate, and accept a newcomer role? What kind of tennis team do they have? AD XXXX called and asked us for off the record consideration and feedback.

The number of TV sets and population centers people harp about is basically nonsense. That sort of stuff is collected by conference office staff or paid consultants for PR purposes and is done well into the process after an unannounced consesus has been formulated. A school will market itself with success, not how many city dwellers are near and dear.

Good Bison, I feel the same way about rambling trivia.

Just to add to Metro's dissertation on market size...

It matters which conference you're talking about. I'm betting that a WAC process kind of sounds objective in the manner Mr. Robinson described.

The Pac-10 has a "formal" process to actuall engage a formall "consideration period," and consideration requires 10 votes... or so I'm told. Why? Beats me. Will Hawaii get "considered" under this definition? No. Utah fell one vote short, and they seem relatively logical. However, the Pac-10's logic train is substantially different than that of us here... so holding your breath in wait of something to happen is highly discouraged.

This is what intrigues me about the Pac 10: it wasn't that long ago that the Pac 10 offered membership to both the University of Colorado and the University of Texas. Both declined, but I have to believe that the Pac 10 would look at expansion again if it could get a market that it really wants. I remember a Pac 10 executive saying one time that the Pac 10 wanted a foothold in the Denver market. I wonder if they still want that market or not?
???

I'm pretty sure that the Pac won't mind.

There were the few years when Washington and Colorado might have considered armed conflict, but now that they're both victims of Rick "Skippy" Neuheisel, the Pac merely has to wait for the current set of Colorado transgressions to blow over... and for Colorado to go nuts and decide to make the jump. This probably has more to do with Colorado than the Pac, even after all that.

Utah offers the SLC market. That's pretty big.