Who's bouncing around? Please explain that one. If anything, the Pac-10 made a statement about expansion many moons ago, it didn't come to pass, and they shut up about it. They've really denied any sort of expansion interest ever since. The Pac and the Big Can't Count are both rather good at being consistent about this subject (the Big are good about whispering that adding Notre Dame wouldn't be any trouble).

Other than that, I'm starting to get a flight of fancy about the continued calls for the Pac-10 to add Hawaii and someone out of the vast wastes of the Great Basin. I think Elko has a suitable high school for consideration. I still like the UNAM and U de G idea, personally. ;D

Agreed on Texas. Colorado, I'm not so sure. ???


Well, the majority of the Pac 10 schools are on the Pacific Coast. There are some located in the southwest (see Arizona and ASU), and no one has complained about them yet. I'd be tempted to go with Hawaii as an 11th too, but it's hard to pair them up with someone who is a big rival for them. (Fresno State comes the closest to that, but...)
I'm almost positive that Boise follows either Oregon, Washington, or BYU sports. Therefore, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to add them, when you really have that market covered, or at least potentially covered. It would be the like the SEC adding Memphis. What's the point?? The same argument could be made Fresno State. However, with the Fresno State, the bigger issue is that it is a Cal State school, and many Pac 10 schools have voiced concerns about Fresno State's academics. That leaves Nevada and UNLV. Nevada's basically out in the middle of nowhere. This would be like adding Utah State. Why? Plus, I haven't heard anything from Nevada's administration about wanting to join the Pac 10. It may be Nevada does not want to join the Pac 10. UNLV could be one to watch though, I'll give you that.

And good fits believe it or not.

http://byu.theinsiders.com/2/113438.html

(dated, but still a good article)

You think of Utah as "Mormon country", but the fact is there is a big LDS presence in all the Pac-10 states (California is second in state membership). Mesa is the Salt Lake City of Arizona with a huge concentration of members, and would draw well in ASU. There are alot of Cali, Washington, Arizona, and Oregon players that choose the Y over UCLA, USC, etc. Between Utah and BYU, you'll get a pair of decent football teams with good draws. (65K and 45K)

And yes, academically, both are excellent Pac-10 caliber schools. I think that USNWR thing (as biased as it is) put them at 2nd tier. I know from a familial (two siblings attended) perspective that the entry requirements at BYU are high academically.

Not only that, but BYU is a volleyball power, something only Pac-10 seem to be known for. An outstanding all-around sports program. Utah's isn't too shabby either.

However you want to stereotype the West Coast philosophy, the presence is there whether they accept them in or not. Might as well cash in on it if they decide to ever expand to 12. Sunday play is about the only "real" issue, but I think something so insignificant can be worked past. It's not like it's attendance, academics, or national recognition.

BYU's been scheduling more and more Pac-10 teams of late. Something's up with the AD there. Either that or the Pac-10 teams are easier BCS teams to schedule and travel to. Whatever, the case, both BYU and Utah have Pac-10 OOC's galore in the upcoming years, so that may have a positive impact on their Pac-10 consideration/admission.

Not that I'm for them in the Pac-10 or anything. ::) To me it would be like selling out and abandoning all their old conference mates and rivals -- destroying Mountain Time Zone football and sports conferences altogether. I'm just saying they're there and two of the best options overall for expansion.

The Pac 10 does not gain by taking BYU or Utah.A 12th game in football hurts BCS chances.Texas and Colorado are up to the the academic standards of the majority of Pac 10 schools,Utah and BYU are not.

Not so

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/natudoc/tier1/t1natudoc_brief.php

BYU -- #67
Utah -- #117

Colorado -- #78
CSU -- #112

Texas -- #53
Texas A&M -- #67

Texas has a small edge, but the geographic distances are something I think that will outweigh positives.

All these are listed as 2nd tier -- there are plenty of Pac-10 schools listed lower or around such as Arizona, ASU, WSU, Oregon, and Oregon State. California's schools are listed really high, along with Washington. It's not like academia rankings are the sole drive of athletic conferences anyway, if the athletics are good, why not take them?

College president's don't necessarily share USNWR's views. In fact, Stanford's president wrote them to complain. Look at the academic reputation portion of the USNWR's rankings, not the overall. That will tell you more what the presidents think.

Ideology also plays a role. The Berkeley types don't want to be seen with BYU.

Academics and ideology matter because, "you're judged by the company you keep." The $ difference would have to be enormous for Texas to ever join the SEC. And the Texas administration seriously considered the Big 10 (not that the Big 10 was interested) as it actually makes more geographic sense than the Pac 10 (Its a long, long way from Austin to El Paso, let alone Los Angeles). If Rice had dropped to Div. III, they were planning on joining the University Athletic Association, which includes Emory (Atlanta), Washington U. (St. Louis), Chicago, Case Western (Cleveland), Carnegie-Mellon (Pittsburg) and RPI (Rochester, NY).

If we are going to split hairs, Boulder may not be west of the Rockiers, however, Grand Junction and every major ski resort is and those areas are as much UC territory as Boulder and have big influence on the west coast.

Unlike the ACC (grin) that make all the academic claims and expand for football to keep up with the less academic minded SEC, the Pac 10 is concerned about academic excellence as a whole for the conference. ASU and some of the previous jock schools are working on changing admissions standards which are key for inproving academics standards at a particular school.

The Pac 10 presidents are against a NCAA div 1 football playoff and less significant a conference football championship game because of the issues caused by the money generated from these type of adventures. Not that the Pac 10 cares less about money, the conference has more concerns with the impact or negative impact this has on the academic side.

With all the recent scandals at Colorado and other schools, the Pac 10 is probably more resistant that ever to expand for football. Colorado is not in the best of postion to be considered for any conference at this point. Could it have to do with 12 team conferences. Would the same situation occured at UC if the Big 8 was still in tack.

12 team conferences don't have anything to do with it. Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. had a long history of major problems in the Big 8. CU's recruits drove the coach of the 90 championship team into the ministry. The Pac 10 had half of their schools on probation at the same time in the early 90s. The SWC only had 9 teams and had serious problems in the 80s. The Big 10 is hardly scandal free. Michigan and Ohio St. have had very embarrassing problems recently.

The Big 12 implemented academic standards much stronger than the Big 8's as part of the deal to put the conference together. Nebraska had more non-qualifiers on their last Big 8 championship team than any other conference.

Actually, what CU's problems show is that it is very hard to get rid of problems. They had made a public effort to improve the character of the athletes they recruited. It was generally accepted that they were succeeding. They didn't have the reputation for picking up gang members like they did in the early 90s. Obviously, it is a slow, difficult process once you get into a bad position. Miami continues to have some problems despite an effort to clean up their act. Their reputation draws some bad characters.

I mainly agree with BYUFan here, while also agreeing with those who think the Pac 10 is a long ways from expanding.

While Colorado (CU) and Texas (UT) may have been the Pac 10's first choice, and both rejected offers. They may not be interested later on as well. What does Texas gain by joining the Pac 10 as far as retaining rivalries. Who would their rivals be? Arizona State? USC? Stanford and Cal-Berkeley maybe? They are seem regionally unrelated other than both UT and Cal-Berkeley being refered to as public ivies. Texas fits in either a Great Plains conference or a southern conference.

Colorado (CU) maybe a better geographic fit with Pac 10 schools. I can see them being rivals with U Washington, U Oregon, Cal-Berkeley, UCLA, USC, ASU, Arizona, Wazzu, and Oregon State. They seem to fit as more natural rivals than UT.

The one exception about their image though is that they have a prairie mamal for a mascot, which fits in more with the Big 12 creatures of Jayhawks, Cyclones, Cornhuskers, Cowboys, Aggies, Red Raiders, Sooners, and especially their "Cattle Battle" counterparts, the Longhorns. Buffaloes have less of a relationship with Husky dogs, Cougars, Beavers, Ducks, Bears, Bruins, and Sun Devils. Those are more mountain, lakes, and desert mascots. They can't find a "Cattle Battle" there that rocks the west, because they can't find some horns from a rival mamal mascot in that Cascadia, Mohave Desert landscape. But they can certainly lock horns with a loud "THUD" somewhere north of Amarillo, TX or south of Lamar, CO there in the Big 12 Great Plains that could be heard all the way to Victoria, TX to Craig, CO or to Decorah, IA.

I mean do Ducks have horns, and can they create a loud "THUD" somewhere in Ontario, OR with a Buffalo steaming in from Boulder? A duck with horns is very very meager when compared to a Longhorn with horns.

Okay, I have gotten way off topic.

The idea here is that there are only 3 remaining spots left among the Big 5 conferences of the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, the Pac 10, and the SEC. The Big 10 has one spot to go to 12 and a championship game, and the Pac 10 has two.

If the Big 10 does decide to expand to get to 12 and a championship and takes Norte Dame, then the Pac 10 may get into the business of being a 12 member-2 division-conference championship conference too, as they would feel compelled to for competitive reasons. They may then approach CU and UT again, but if CU and UT are amongst their emerging new Big 12 rivals for a decade or two, would CU and UT then join. I think the split from CU's long term Big 8 rivals in the Big 12, and UT's Texas and Oklahoma rivals would be harder to split from as time goes on.

Then, if the Pac 10 says they have to expand to stay competitive, quite frankly, the University of Utah and BYU are by far the best candidates, as far as academics and football following. UU and BYU's academic reputation isn't that far off from CU and UT, relatively speaking. UUtah has a great medical school, and is somewhat better than Oregon, Oregon State, and Arizona State academically, as is BYU.

The only derivation maybe philosophy. But besides that their really isn't one. There are the best combination then of academics, performance on the field and geographic closeness. This is of course something like the U of Nevada and UNLV rise as both upper echelon academic and football schools to the point that they are more preferable. So Utah and BYU, may not be as top of choice as CU and UT, but I think they may be the 3rd and 4th best choices and also the most likely choices given UT and CU choices in the past and their continuing longevity with long-term rivals.

Just to add here, as I have just read some of the previous posts about Fresno State's chances of getting into the Pac 10 and about them pumping millions of dollars into their academics for PhD programs and a Medical School.

Here is a thought that goes along with that, as far as image. Would the California legislature ever consider establishing one of the Cal-State's as a flagship of that system and make that designation for Fresno State, as if they expanded dramatically in granting PhD's and thus "National University" status? Why not designate CSU-Fresno and the flagship university of the Cal-State system, and thus, "Fresno State" could then be referred to souly as "California State University". Having "California State University" join the ranks of the University of California, Washington State University, Oregon State University and Arizona State University would sound really quite good. Remember, Arizona State University was once called Arizona State Normal College-Tempe, so why not convert California State University-Fresno to just California State University and not emphasize the hypenated "Fresno", as it would be the only "National University-PhD Granting" CSU school, thus the flagship and the right to use "California State" once they expanded their academics and received "Cal-State U System Flagship" status.

Actually, the Buffaloes and the Ducks have had a good solid relationship for many years. While a duck isn't all that intimidating to a buffalo, a duck is often underrated and can pull tricks to befuddle the buffalo. ;) That's why Oregon's Civil War is such a chess match. Both Ducks and Beavers know how to outwit their opponents. However, it's really hard to outwit each other. ;) Anyway, back to the topic. If Oregon had to pick a permanent OOC rival, it would be Colorado. These two teams have like a "Best in the West" battle. Oregon lives to beat Colorado. Likewise, Colorado hates it when they lose to Oregon. www.jhowell.net or www.cfbdatawarehouse.com should have the historical records for Oregon vs Colorado. You might want to look them up sometime, sportsgeog. :)


Colorado can continue its "Cattle Battle" with Texas if both teams would agree to it. However, there's the catch right there. While Colorado would definitely agree to it, Texas might not. Texas is not known for scheduling too many strong OOC teams, especially if that OOC team would deal Texas a loss. Proof positive that Texas is afraid of scheduling good OOC teams would be Texas' refusal to continue the Arkansas series after this year. Arkansas AD was all for continuing the series. Texas was not. Need I say more on that subject? ::)


Colorado's only true rival, IMO, is Nebraska, but they are developing a rivalry with Texas as well. That's it, basically. Colorado has nothing in common with KSU, KU, ISU, etc. In fact, Colorado is the lone western outpost of the Big 12. Texas is a good fit for the Big 12 and I doubt that they would ever leave now. They have everything they need over there. Rivalries? Check. Power? Check. Money? Check. Texas might get more $$'s in the SEC, but they would lose their power and some of their cherished rivalries. Therefore, the Big 12 wins out over the SEC.

Actually Texas' had already agreed to a pair of games with Ohio State - there wasn't room on the schedule for more. (...and come on, who would be a tougher OOC opponent). UT also plays Rice every year (historical reasons) and the third OOC game is the cakewalk.

DawgNDuck fan, you should stick with teams you know, like the Dawgs who schedule an embarrassingly easy ooc schedule (I'm married to a Dawg so I know who they schedule). UT has traditionally scheduled one of the toughest ooc schedules. Mack Brown thinned it out a little in his early years, but there are still some decent teams. Prior to the Big 12, there was OU every year. I have up to 92 handy:
84 Auburn (Bo Jackson), Penn St., OU
85 Missouri, Stanford, OU
86 same
87 Auburn, BYU, Oregon St., OU
88 BYU, New Mexico, North Texas, OU
89 Colorado, Penn St., OU
90 Penn St., Colorado (ntl champs), OU
91 Mississippi St., Auburn, OU
92 Mississippi St., Syracuse, North Texas

Then
95 Notre Dame, Virginia, ?
96 New Mexico St., Notre Dame, Virginia
97 Rutgers, UCLA, Rice
98 New Mexico St., UCLA, Rice
99 N. Carolina St., Stanford, Rice, Rutgers
00 UL-Lafayette, Stanford, Houston
01 New Mexico St., North Carolina, Houston
02 North Texas, North Carolina, Houston, Tulane

They have had Arkansas the last two years. They have Ohio St. coming up. Name a BCS school other than Notre Dame or perhaps Tennessee who has scheduled as well. Many don't schedule any BCS foes. UT only has 3 ooc games. They usually schedule one "warm-up", one Houston game for recruiting and one interesting game. Arkansas does a lot for Arkansas but nothing for Texas.

Did you ever consider the possibility that one size does NOT fit all? The XII and SEC went to 12 teams. The ACC followed suit. The B10, not shooting for twelve, put an overture out to ND because it was a good fit. So twelve seems to be the operative number, as of late.

But why should the Pac 10 feel compelled to go for that number? Look at the geography of the region. There are no schools in WA, OR, CA, or AZ that are really logical choices for membership. In the states due east of the region, despite tremendous growth, there a lack of density and population in place to put their programs in a league with the west coast. That's a lot of open space between the coast states and the bulk of the US population, states with little connection with the Pacific region. So why expand?

The Pac Ten is more like the Big Ten in nature, expecially when it comes to feeling pressure from other BCS conferences. Remember that if both those conferences ever tired of the nonsense of the whole BCS, they'd make many people on the coast and in the midwest perfectly happy by concluding EVERY year with a Rose Bowl match-up and leave the insanity to others.

i agree the PAC 10 will stay at 10.