Compared to the other conferences, it has no really big money bowl for its #2 team. The Holiday Bowl is nice, but it seems more set up for #3 vs. #3 matchup with Big 12.

How about a new bowl in the LA Coliseum? It could match the #2 PAC-10 school against either the MWC/WAC champion (whichever is the highest in the polls). Payout could be similar to Cotton Bowl.

Just a thought.

The answer is yes. LA MC is a horrible idea, but that's another thread.

Problem: Big money bowl and the Mountain West or WAC champion? No.

Main reason...

(I whipped into this math over the weekend upon realizing that Oregon was going to Saint Diego)

EFFECTIVE CORE POPULATIONS OF CONFERENCES:

Pac-10: 50 million (populations of California, Washington, Arizona, and Oregon)

ACC: 51 million (populations of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and the Boston and Atlanta metro areas... working on a hunch regarding Georgia Tech's popularity in Georgia)

Big 10: 66 million (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania)

Big 12: 43 million (Iowa- feeling generous, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas)

SEC: 54 million (Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana).

...then...

Big East: 29 million (Connecticut, New Jersey, West Virginia, then Western Pennsylvania, Northern New York, and the Cincinnati, Louisville, and Tampa-St. Petersburg metro areas... yes, I know that'll be controversial, but I'm more confident with that hunch than I am with the Georgia Tech and Iowa State equations)

Mountain West: 16 million (Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, San Diego County CA, Tarrant County TX)

WAC: 11 million (Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada outside Clark County, Northern Utah with Ogden and Weber County as the southern border, Northwestern Louisiana from Shreveport to Ruston- a stretch, Santa Clara County CA, and the San Joaquin Valley in CA)... note that the San Joaquin Valley is a third of that 11 million, and Pat Hill will argue that I should include the 600,000 in San Joaquin County (Stockton) in that number, but I don't.

There's another measurement I wish to introduce here... Total Stadium Capacity Generated By The School.

Pac 10: 606,842

SEC: 923,457

Big 10: 821,616

Big 12: 738,078

ACC: 664,757

(NOTE: Of the above, instead of stadium capacity for USC, UCLA, Minnesota, and Miami, I used average attendance for 2005, because those stadia were built for other original purposes. I also used 50,000 for Stanford, as they've already effectively downsized, and just have to move dirt, wood, and metal to make it official)

Big East: 347,187

(Same as above for Pittsburgh and South Florida- those stadia were built for NFL teams)

Mountain West: 380,404

(Same as above for San Diego State)

WAC: 290,587

With very few exceptions (see Stanford, which is about to be corrected), college football stadium capacities are designed to minimize cost AND maximize revenue. Schools do want to create a little scarcity in order to maintain their ticket prices. Therefore, stadium capacities are a reflection of the conservatively derived "potential" of each program. That's why I think this matters along with the population numbers I showed above.

Big money is not forked over by schools. It's forked over by sponsors. Bowls are designed to get people to travel to a location during a time period when few people usually travel. Sponsors would rather spend the money to go after those bigger conferences, and for good reason.

The Mountain West is running out of bowl options because they don't travel that well. The WAC schools literally have to prop up at least one of their two bowl games because sponsors don't care. I think it stands to reason that a big money bowl game will NOT involve either conference.

The Pac-10 needs a sponsor to throw more money at the Holiday. Problem is that the fans want that #2 Pac-10 team to face the #2 from one of the other FOUR major conferences. They're all tied up at the moment, in bowls much closer to those fan bases. Like I asked earlier, what's the Pac to do?

Agreed. The Pac-10 needs a serious upgrade to the Holiday bowl.

the problem they face is geography and existing bowl arrangments. There are only so many conferences out there and you can only have so many #2 vs #2 matchups.

Ideally, I'd like to see the Pac-10 and Big Ten give it's fans a gift that they can promise each year: a Pac-10 #2 vs Big Ten #2 in the Holiday Bowl. If the Pac-10 or Big Ten have a second team int he BCS, then the #3 team from the conference would top the list, followed by an at-large choice from antoher conference.

Rose Bowl: BCS or Pac 10 #1 vs Big Ten #1
Sugar Bowl: BCS or SEC #1 vs At-Large
Fiesta Bowl: BCS or Big XII #1 vs At-Large
Orange Bowl: BCS or ACC #1 vs Big East #1

Holiday Bowl: Pac 10 #2 vs Big Ten #2 (and make it a January 1st game )

The Capitol One bowl would need to add a new opponentto replace the Big Ten #2. Logical choice would be the Big XII #3 team, the current Holiday Bowl opponent.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Tom delay would be proud of your numbers.Just give the BE 25 miles around their cities and everyone else the full state.

Agree with all above assessments.

The Pac-10 needs the Cotton Bowl or the Alamo Bowl.
The Alamo Bowl could upgrade perhaps.
The Holiday isn't going to New Years because they don't want to go opposite the Rose Bowl.

#2 Pac 10 should play #2 Big 12 in the Cotton or the #3 Big 10 in the Alamo.

The Holiday Bowl should drop to the #3 Pac-10.
The Sun Bowl has history, but I can't really see going to ElPaso in December.

As it stands the Pac-10 is on a two year run of screw jobs through the BCS. If it wasn't changing next year already, I would vacate and go back to the Rose Bowl if I was the Pac 10. You don't need the BCS because you're not getting in anyway. The BCS needs the Rose in the current format a lot more than the Pac-10 needs the BCS.
The five bowl format may change this, but you will just see more undeserving teams from the SEC or ACC with two losses jumping one loss Pac-10 teams.

I know somebody is going to say you can't walk away from all that money, but when you don't get it anyway you aren't really walking away are you. The East Coast/Notre Dame bias is pretty freakin' sickening.

Oregon should be in the Fiesta, but Notre Dame draws the money.

8-)

Incidentally enough, the Pac-10 lost both the Cotton (1995-1997, shared with WAC) and the Alamo (1993-1994)...

As for Oregon this year, and Cal last year, where was the love for the 2000 Washington team that finished with one loss (9-2 Oregon), and beat Miami (who, in turn, beat Florida State)...

It didn't even appear in an ESPN SportsNation Poll (granted) as an option for "top BCS failure" (paraphrasing) alongside Oregon (2001), USC (2003), and Auburn (2004)...

Pounder! Stats?! :D
I'm so proud I... I... I could just :'(

- - - - - -

Does the PAC 10 need another "Big Money bowl?"
Yes. But getting one will be difficult for several reasons:

- Tough to break into other, existing match-ups.
With their #1 already "traditionally" assigned to face the PAC 10, the Big Ten is loathe to abandon their big $ showdowns with the SEC. And let's face it, those are the next biggest games after the BCS. Right in there is the Cotton, again luring traditionally big names from the Big 12 and SEC. Lower tier match-ups among these leagues also carry appeal, but few would argue these aren't the best options among those parties.

- Tough to break into the prime time slots.
ABC's New Year's Day is set and few people want to conpete with the Rose Bowl for ratings. Most existing NYD bowls are east coast and SEC, ACC, etc. Outback, Cap One, Gator, Cotton and usually the Sugar and/or Orange. Thus there are few options logistically feasible and introducing a new NYD bowl would further crowd the market and be pushed to warrant big $.

- Location, location, location
ACC would love another Big $, high profile match-up as well, but few ACC programs would pack 20k fans for a trip across the country. Same for PAC 10 regarding their non-interest in the Gator. So you effectively have a smaller pool of teams/conferences to pull from and fewer combined destinations to use given LA, SD and Tempe are already spoken for. Ideally the PAC 10 might prefer a traditional bowl world wherein their #2 meets the Big 12 #2 in the Fiesta, though where to put it time-wise is tough to figure. Alas...

- - - - - - -

Courting the MWC (WAC, Big West...)
Traditionally the PAC 10 has shunned any measure that supports this idea out of the notion that a) They like to be able to market themselves as THE conference for the entire west and fear any intrusion would severely cut their television revenues, recruiting, etc, and b) most PAC 10 members actually consider themselves academically head and shoulders above other insitutions on that side of the cont. divide. They can deal with regular contests against Utah, CSU and others, but granting Fresno St, UNLV and Boise an equal seat at the big boys table would be considered blasphemy. While there may be quality sports programs among such schools, the PAC 10 is doing its best impression of a league towing the BCS mantra of "flagships, privates and advanced research universities only, thank you." As a result, they've cornered the western market but have also left themselves without the benefit of convenient quality opposition.

This is why nin the past I've argued that in the long run the PAC 10 would be better served by having a true regional peer conference. The SEC seems to be doing fine sandwiched between the Big 12 and ACC. It could be argued, even, that the volume of high profile programs is driving the overall demand for college sports in those regions. Half of the perceived "coastal bias," I truly believe, stems less from cultural divisiveness and more from the fact that the Eastern and Central Time Zones comprise the lions share of teams. It should be no surprise then that highlights and programming center around those regions. That might change if (say) the MWC was able to perform as and be viewed as a true peer.

It's not as easy as snapping our fingers and saying "So let it be written..." but a little nurturing can probably yield the desired result. As discussed elsewhere on the board, a reconfigured MWC that tries to fill in the geographic and cultural gaps in western representation can be fostered programmatically into a peer conference. As populations and fan support grow the appeal of the league will begin to close the gap between the them and other established conferences.

Then the elements would be there for another Big $ bowl for the PAC 10.



Okay, I'm done now. ;)

As a Duck, I can muster no love for Washington. :D

Part of the beef I'm feeding everyone here is that Pac-10 schools generally did NOT travel to the Cotton Bowl. Oregon brought 17,000 for the '96 game. BYU is, of course, not in the Pac, and they were kind of overwhelmed by the Kansas State presence that year (35,000). The year UCLA went, even though Texas A&M was in that game, the Bowl people actually covered sections to mask the empty seats. I think that was the end of the notion that the Pac-10 would get any scheduled bowl games east of the Mountain Time Zone.

Really three if you count USC not getting into the title game.




Not that I agree with it, but there is logic behind it. Time zones.

Obviously the TV executives know that the east and central folks aren't going to stay up late to watch their teams playing out west while the west folks will watch their teams play eariler back east.

Plus the bulk of the US population is in the east and central zones so thats where the advertising money is.

That's because 4 and a half out of 8 Big East teams aren't statewide draws. Of course, I didn't see Boston College being any different... I really struggled with calculating that one. Mind you, we could argue over 3 million people in Kentucky, a million folks down the Southwest Coast of Florida, and the fact that I drew a line about two-thirds of the way from Pittsburgh to State College, but those arguments won't add up to a lot more. Mind you, what others have to concede is that nothing can really be added to the Mountain West equation... though the growth rate is MUCH faster.

I keep noticing that ABC doesn't come close to bending over backwards to bring Syracuse (I'd say Syracuse and Pitt add up to 1 and a half state schools) to the NYC TV market. There's a reason for that. I suspect NYC is a baseball-first market.

What you didn't mention (and I'm SERIOUSLY disappointed that you didn't) is that I calculated for only the football schools. Why? That's where the money is. Even ESPN people will tell you that their basketball ratings aren't worth making comparisons with football contracts.

I really think that the MWC is deserving of a bcs bid. I think that the Big 12 will make the cotton bowl their bcs tie-in, and the mwc will have a chance to get the fiesta bowl, and become the 2nd bcs conference in the west. I think a league like this could be very succussful:

EAST
Air Force
BYU
Colorado
Colorado State
Utah
Wyoming

WEST
Boise State
Fresno State
Nevada
New Mexico
San Diego State
UNLV

The Holiday bowl could become MWC #2 vs. PAC TEN #2, which last year would have been BYU vs. Cal which would have been a solid machup.

Colorado will not join the MWC.


They're looking to go to the Pac 10 and perhaps take Utah with them.

If the MWC gained an auto-bid with the BCS, I think there is a very good chance that they would join. They have many more natural rivals, and would become one of the top members. The pac ten never should or will go past ten and the round robin format.

Blog article out of San Jose suggesting that the PAC-10 needs to upgrade it's bowl lineup to include adding more Texas bowls.Would it help if the Pac 10 expanded eastward into Big 12 territory?
Link at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/12/11/the-pac-10-bowl-lineups-bad-and-heres-why

ASU MB thread discussing above article regarding possibly upgrading the PAC-10 bowl lineup. Link at http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?S=43&F=1679&T=3615786&P=1