Now don't get too wild, Wildman. Yes we do have our fans, don't we? I agree with F.View on the part that Colorado will not be in the PAC. I would add that Texas is not interested eather, looking at info. from the past. Looking that the conf. power ratings you would see that both CO and TX are both better in their present conf. The PAC is just fine the way they are.

I'm a Duck, and I hate to say this, and you seem to forget this, but Utah beat both California and Oregon on the gridiron last season. Given that Cal beat USC and Virginia Tech, and Oregon beat Michigan, I'd say this isn't exactly the mark of a bad team.

I don't think it really relates to the discussion, in any event. Actually, Utah got 9 votes for Pac-10 consideration (problem being they needed 10). I know Pac-10 games are regularly shown in the market (which has grown immensely due to the normal and usual flight from LA), so it's a strong possibility that the Pac-10 considers Salt Lake and Utah to already be part of their market, much less San Diego and Fresno. Therefore, they aren't under any true consideration for expansion.

Several years ago... and I didn't say ADMISSION, I said CONSIDERATION. Since that was many moons ago, I lost the article involved.

Apparently, the Pac-10 has to be unanimous on whether to consider a school, but must only provide 8 votes to admit once in consideration.

This thread has had some interesting points raised about how no other California state school would ever be admitted to the Pac Ten. So much of that discussion has dealt with the academics as well as the athletics of schools (Fresno St, SD St, etc.) that are potential members.

So here's a question on the academic end: California is more nation-size than state-size. Can such a huge entity go on forever with just two schools (Cal and UCLA) at top flagship-status? There is a heckuva lot of growth in Calif. outside LA and the Bay Area. Isn't it conceivable that some UC school or even CSU school will take that step up and offer what you have in Berkeley and Westwood academically....and therefore maybe athletically and worthy of Pac Ten membership?

In answer to your question, I would say no. California cannot go on with just two flagship public schools (USC & Stanford are privates, and do not count in this discussion, unless they have a situation similar to Tulane [state supported but not a state school. See PSU, Pittsburgh, and Temple]). Texas used to have two flagship schools (Texas & TAMU), and now they have four I believe (Texas, TAMU, Texas Tech, & Houston). If it can happen in Texas, it can happen in California.

California does have a number of flagships, but being in urban areas, and very close to Berkeley and UCLA, they aren't likely to be big time sports programs. UC-Davis, IMO, is the only one with any chance-and that would be many years off. They are just now joining Div I.

UC-Davis and UC-San Diego are often mentioned as being among the top public schools in the country, at the same level as UCLA. UC-Irvine is also highly regarded and UC-Santa Barbara and UC-Santa Cruz are major research universities. So California really has about 7 flagships.

Texas has 2 public tier one research universities. Houston and Texas Tech are not, but they want to be. There is a plan to bring them to tier one, but whether the funding and committment will be there over the 15-20 years to get there is uncertain. If it is, there will be one Dallas school to move along with them, probably UT-Arlington. But Dallas can't decide whether to back UTA, UT-Dallas or North Texas.

I believe there's some kind of Big Ten rule or bylaw that wouldn't allow that anyway. I believe the rule is that any team must come from a state that either already contains a Big Ten school or is adjacent to a state that does.

I suppose this is to maintain a realistic geographical footprint.

Can anyone confirm this?

bullet,

California really only has two flagships...
Cal and UCLA
Resource freshman admit rates as an example...
Cal-admits 23.7% of freshman applications (44.9% of 4.0 applicants!)
UCLA-admits 23.7% also (48.5% of 4.0 applicants)
Hence, as a freshman with a 4.0 gpa, you have a less than 50% of being accepted to these two universities, and it's getting tougher with the current California budget crisis.

The next tier is...
San Diego-41.0% of freshmen (D-II athletics)
Santa Barbara-50.9% of freshmen
Irvine-56.3% of freshmen
Davis-61.9% of freshmen

All except for San Diego (78%) accept over 90% of all 4.0 freshmen applicants.

At the bottom are
Riverside-77.8%
Santa Cruz-78.3% (D-III athletics)
These are only slightly tougher to get into than most of the Cal-State schools (in fact Cal Poly is probably tougher to get into than both of these!)

San Francisco is a graduate medical school that does not accept freshman and plays "club" athletics.

None of these schools is close to being put at the top level academically or athletically. The Pac-10 has no current viable California option that would be considered.

8-)

It's just common sense.
Utah is not even close the central part of the nation that they control.