The PAC 10 has been bitten by the Conference Championship Game bug. They Have recided that ony schools west of the Rocky Mountain Divide need apply.

Which two of the schools in the polls are most likely to join the PAC 10? Remember: The PAC 10 is as much an academic alliance as athletic.

Utah only gets in if BYU gets in. BYU doesn't get in. Therefore, Utah doesn't get in.

The only 3 with a chance would then be Hawaii, Nevada, and New Mexico.

Hawaii is a lot of travel cost. Facilities are good. Market is good. Teams are OK. No idea about academics. Land grant school.

Nevada has good facilities, decent market, teams are good, no idea about academics, land grant.

New Mexico is basically the same.


If I were the Pac 10 I'd probably choose New Mexico for sure and maybe Hawaii sine Nevada has low football attendance.

if the pac 10 were to expand it they would probably choose two teams. i dont think it will be any time soon but i think 1 could very likely be uc davis it has excellent academics and pushing for better athletics. the other could be utah or colorado.

Colorado looks nice in theory, but it's not worth it for anyone that's already in a BCS conference to move.

My thoughts are UNLV and New Mexico. Las Vegas is the last great untapped market. All of that city's demographics state that it ought to have franchises in all of the pro leagues by now - they're all just spooked because of the gambling perception. If the Pac 10 can be the first true major sports entity in that town, they're going to be sitting pretty in the long term.

New Mexico probably has the best fan base out of the choices, so that would be the tipping point there.

UNLV would never get in because of its academics, and sacramento is also an untapped market, that is bigger than las vegas.

It will only let me vote for one school. :(

The untapped big markets are in California, not in the still tiny Mountain states. Davis, Sacramento, & Fresnop would all bring large, new markets. Davis would have the added benefit of bringing Pac Ten football to the state capitol.

I realy son't think most of the schools should have even been included on that list as there is a near 0% chance for most of them.

There are a few variables in play here. The Pac10 would only consider adding schools with similar academic standards. Current schools could improve, that is true. But they would also require all-sports (Bowl caliber football) and also would follow the trend of adding schools with a large media market/national following.

Assuming that Colorado and Texas are off the list for good (were invited to the Pac 10 years ago), the candidates would be limited:

BYU - large national following with many alum in the California Pac-10 markets
Utah - worth watching their successes over the next few years.

Cal St. Schools:

It's doubtful that the Cal schools of UCLA and Berkeley, along with privates Stanford and USC, would want a Cal St. school. Sacramento St., the Cal St. flagship could make a political push if they upgrade their program, join the WAC and find some success.

Fresno St. has has the most success, but academics would need a boost along with athletic department stability.

San Diego St. is intriguing as they offer the SD market, but still have the stigma of being a Cal. St school.


UNLV is a option worth mention as they offer one of the fastest growing markets, and one that is a manageable drive for 6 of the existing Pac-10 schools.


Not many other schools would make the list. New Mexico would need to find more success to garner any real attention. Colorado St. is similar in situation.

_________________


@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.

Please allow me to stress the following:

Sacramento is, generally, the main place where people who can no longer afford the Bay Area move. Plus, please remember, STATEWIDE FLAGSHIPS, one of which is in Berkeley. Sacramento is NOT a new market to the Pac-10... and Davis is part of the Sacramento market.

Fresno State still fights Pac-10 fans... IN FRESNO. They are not a new market for the Pac-10.

What I said about Sacramento in the Bay Area dynamic applies to Las Vegas in the Southern California dynamic. Same thing, same result... Vegas is regarded as a Pac-10 city for the foreseeable future.

Utah's rapid growth MAY be partially attributable to "interior forces," but it also draws on the escape from California. Most of the time, ABC shows Pac-10 games in SLC (the Salt Lake City TV market is, with maybe a minor adjustment or two, the entire state of Utah). It's going to take a lot more growth, and perhaps more growth in the remainder of the Mountain West, to change that dynamic.

I do wonder if Colorado / Colorado State could become a package, if not Colorado / Utah. Would the Pac-10 take Utah if it gets Colorado? I don't know, really.

The Pac-10 cannot expand unless it is OUTSIDE the current sphere of their influence. If they try to expand within it, revenues per school will actually decrease, because the TV contract will NOT increase. That sphere of influence reaches all the way to the Continental Divide, so it does no good to add virtually all of the schools most people here suggest.

The sacramento, denver, and salt lake markets are the ones the pac 10 should look at. they should bring two of thee schools: uc davis, utah, colorado, colorado state.

Among Utah, BYU, Colorado, or CSU, the PAC 10 could find a couple. There are others they would obviously reject such as SDSU, UNLV, Boise State, or Hawaii that they would reject.

While Utah would appear the one with the least negatives, all of them have certain drawbacks, be it distance, tradition, market value, affiliations, or quality of academics. However, each have certain positives as well. And potential schools can get stronger with a PAC10 association. That adds to their profiles and opportunities.

For major conferences, there are no more "ideal" choices hanging except for stubborn Notre Dame. (Unless there is an ACC style raid on a neighboring BCS conference which is a very diminishing option).

Even when a fine school such as Penn State was added to the Big 10, there were certain grumblings. The Big 10 could easily land a respectable #12 if they open to someone else other than Notre Dame.

Agree with most of what is said here. Currently there is no carrot for PAC-10 expansion.
Why go to 12, just for the sake of being 12 ? I really like that they have chosen to use the extra football game to go to a complete round-robin and eliminate the silliness of the situations where some years the two top teams didn't play each other.

The ten-team round robin seems superior to the 2 6-team division concepts, since you don't run the risk of an upset by an underserving team in the championship, or a re-match game, which seems to penalize the team that already beat the other in the regular season.

The big TV market in the west (available for exploitation by the PAC-10) would seem to be Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and Denver. So if they were forced to expand, Utah and Colorado might be the best pair.

Other possibilities have issues - Hawaii and San Diego (travel and a TV market that is already partially captive) - UNLV (academics, although that can be waived if you wave enough $) and Nevado-Reno (kinda small).

Ten members is fine, maybe near ideal, for a regular season of twelve games for football. I doubt any of the major conferences (SEC, BIG12, & ACC) went to twelve for just the sake of it. There were motives beyond the fb championship game. This included new markets and other revenue enhancement motives.

Where 12 vs 11 or 10 or 8 becomes more of an acute matter to ponder, is not necessarily in the regular season, but addressing factors of consistency, scheduling equity, 13th game (championship), prior to extended post season (BCS bowls) play.
Help or hurts, the conference championship game influences results. Mathematically, representing the top of 12, rather than the top of 8, for perhaps most years, carries an expectation of added strength.

Only one school, Notre Dame, is given an independent criteria. Whether that is deemed a more difficult or easier method to reach the BCS, it just shows further the system is not uniform or consistent.

Noting the Big10's recent TV channel negotiations, that is not to say a championship game in the Big10 or the PAC 10 would not emerge as lucrative. Obviously, the incentives or pressure are not at the level to force them to do so yet.

In the SEC, most Championship games are exciting. In the SEC, I doubt a "failed" team would make the game considering the competition. Both the east and west divisions have solid opponents and enough cross-over is involved to avoid a fluke. Some repeat games are exciting. If a team is unable to defeat an opponent twice, perhaps that is also a message that the team is not the most worthy to receive the championship crown. While psychological factors are in play for such games, that does mean the earlier loser has not improved considerably, or is not allowed to adjust for mistakes from the first round.

Further, by the divisional opponent not having played half the schools from the other division during the regular season, there is close to a 50% chance there is not a rematch in the SEC. Only one school in the other division is a permanent opponent (GA-Auburn; Kentucky-MSU; SC-Ark.; LSU-FLA; Vandy-MISS; & ALA-TENN). That also allows for more rotation compared to having the previous two permanent opponents in the other division.

There are also conferences that may not want more than 8 conference games, yet maintain the championship game. With the 12th regular season game, that allows schools an option in playing somebody they want to when otherwise they have a diminished opportunity. Such, for example, has allowed another short planned series of future Georgia-Clemson games or a first time South Carolina-South Carolina State game.

While the PAC 10 and Big 10 formats are pretty settled and they are quite conservative about expansion, the Big East poses the most glaring inconsistency. Each BE team has only seven regular season games with conference opponents which renders a home-away imbalance; yet has monstrous numbers for bb. The PAC10 and Big10 had the freedom to play added in-conference games; the Big East doesn't.

We also need to keep in mind that for all-sports conferences, fb may not be the only (though way the most prominent) sport evaluated in terms of settling on numbers and balancing factors.

the western unclaimed pac 10 markets along with their rankings are as follows:
18. Denver
19. Sacramento
26. San Diego
36. Salt Lake City
for everyones information las vegas is ranked 48. very low

I realize that the Pac10 doesn't have teams in San Diego and Sacramento but wouldn't you say those cities are at least split with the Pac10 and the MWC?

Also I am curious as to UNR? Does UNR not have a 'state wide' following? Just curious as I am not familiar with western demographics.

Thanks!

Not true. BC, Miami, and VT left for the ACC and before you say that VT and Miami belong in the ACC the original expansion plan was for SU, BC, and Miami. Neither BC nor SU belong in the ACC. I belive that BC is almost doubling their money from the ACC move from conference payouts from $5 to $6 million to $10.5 million. They made the move for money and academics.

Academics would be nice for Colorado to be with Standford, Berkley, etc. Then again, the Big12 is no slouch in academics either (I think?). In addition, I don't think there would be a big difference in pay between the Big12 and Pac10.

BYU and Colorado would be good expansion targets. If not BYU then Utah combined with Colorado would be next. I don't think the rest add enough money to goto 12 - at least right now.