Maybe we'll current a more accurate reading of the poltical climate re: BYU in the PAC 10 if the ACC expands. If that sets the Big 11 in motion, the Pac 10 is gonna be pretty unhappy having no title game, a crappy tv deal, and being the poor man in the BCS. I'm curious what candidates will be bounced around. I've always agreed with you guys about the opposition to BYU, but BC may soon be in the ACC. Almost anything is possible. Granted, it's not nearly as big of a leap, but Boston Jesuit school in a southern conference with Wake? Weird.

Any chance it would be easier for the Pac 10 to stomach if the Cali schools shoved BYU into the northen division with the Washington and Oregon schools? Out-of-sight out-of-mind? I guess the institutional differences would still grate on the Pac 10 like crazy. I just can't imagine them doing nothing if every other BCS conference has gone to 12 though. If that BYU political problem is insurmountable, then I guess it's Utah, and wait for problems with the Big 12 and pray to scoop up Colorado. But how long do they wait? I can't see them taking C. St. unless they're a package deal with the Buffs.

D&D
In general No. Californians don't care for Southern California. So. Californians are ambivalent towards No. California.
Look at the nightly news...where were most of your large political anti-war protests held?...San Francisco. I am a fairly political moderate from the Bay Area, and a Cal graduate. That makes me almost a fascist at times out here...we are pretty left of center.
This is why I agree on your assessment of the BYU issue. Pac-10 presidents are fairly liberal as a group. BYU does not fit well.
Although perhaps ACCNole is right and the Pac-10 could swallow hard and stick 'em in the north, but UO and UW are pretty liberal too! (Eugene is BayArea North)
Still the Pac-10 won't want to be left behind if all the Big 6 conferences start finding a way to get to 12.

Also, I will believe BC to the ACC when I see it!
I don't see the Jesuits heading south.

If it were just all about athletics BYU would have been in a BCS conference already! 8-)

1. LA is the second largest city in the US (SF has always been jealous of LA because of this fact)
2. LA is in the news more than SF (see Hollywood).


Well, of course SF and the Bay Area is jealous of LA. It has always been their dream to be a vast, smoggy, congested, waterless, spread out sewer of a basin with every social problem imaginable. True, LA is in the news more than SF, but virtually all that news is bad: can you think of a police-case-turned-trial that took place in southern California that didn't make LA seem like a joke?

I would have to say San Francisco has far more in common with New York and Chicago than it does with Los Angeles.

daddwags,

I forgot about Oregon, they wouldn't mesh with BYU that's for sure. But maybe they're more "live and let live" types rather than "rally against the lastest offensive issue" types (i.e., Cal)? I have no idea, just a very ignorant theory. Didn't even occur to me that Washington was pretty liberal as well....but DUH, Seattle. I should've known.

I always thought BYU would have a better chance of getting into the Big 12 than the PAC 10. Now I have changed my mind because if this ACC change is made then I see Pittsburgh being added as the 12th team to the Big 10. This means that is will be very unlikely for the Big 12 to do any changes. BYU’s best hope was for Missouri moving to the Big 10, but that won't happen if Pittsburgh goes instead.

I have not felt the PAC 10 would make a change, but if the ACC and Big 10 goes to 12 teams then I don't see that they have a choice if they want to compete for the BCS money. It would mean 5 conferences now competing for 8 shares of the BCS money, and without a conference championship game the PAC would be pretty much limited to only 1 share. However, with a conference championship game, they would be able to compete on even ground with the other four 12 team conferences for equal shares.

I don't see how the PAC 10 can expand to 12 teams without taking BYU. My reason is this, the PAC 10 is very unlikely to add another California school, the other members of the conference were against that the last time they considered expanding because the already had 4 CA schools. With that in consideration, unless they could steal a school from the Big 12 (I find this very unlikely), that leaves only 4 teams I know of that could be considered for expansion: UNLV, BYU, UTAH, CSU. With those 4 teams, BYU and UTAH have the best overall sports programs, facilities in both men and women sports, number paying fans. BYU is in the top 15 of the Sear’s Cup every year. BYU and Utah are also the best two schools academically. BYU is always in the top 10 in High School Merit Scholars. BYU sells out its football stadium 60,000+ consistently. BYU has a large national following; nothing like Notre Dame but very large as evidenced by their tremendous TV ratings in ESPN.

Sunday play is the biggest obstacle for BYU to overcome. In fact, they simply can not overcome it. BYU will drop its sports altogether before it will play on Sunday. They have made that very clear. This is the biggest negative for BYU; one that any new Conference would just have to live with and make concessions for.

As for the idea some have that liberals in the PAC hate the conservatives at BYU and vise versa; this just doesn’t have to be. BYU will have to learn diversity. The PAC will have to learn diversity too by admitting BYU. Liberals always preach diversity, and I think they can actually do it in this case and admit BYU.

BYU will never be admitted to the PAC 10 because of their religious affiliation. Cal and Stanford especially don't like BYU and their political views. Utah maybe but never BYU.

Also the no play on Sunday's is not acceptable. The PAC 10 isn't going to change their scheduling for BYU.

Optimistic,
Now that is about the funniest thing I've heard in a long time... ;D
You are either a liberal, or you don't know many... :)

Don't get me wrong your argument makes all kinds of sense...practically speaking. BYU and Utah, I have always felt are the logical choices for Pac-10 expansion. I just can't see it happening.
The politics of the BYU (including the Sunday play) situation are too great to overcome at this time.
(Agree with Aztec, DawgDuck, etc. on this one!) ;D

And now I will stop beating that dead horse.

BYU is BCS caliber for all reasons you state...They would have to go Big 12, and there needs to be movement for that to occur. Just can't see it.

Maybe you are right, and getting left at the championship game dance without a ticket will stimulate change in the Pac-10, but philosophical changes are difficult for those who take political stances at either end of the spectrum. ;)

The Pac-10 would LOVE either Texas or Colorado (or both), and would take a lot of different partners with them (read CSU and A&M even), but they would have a hard time swallowing BYU even for Utah.

I'd like to be wrong on this one! 8-)

Beyond the no-Sunday-play problem and the ultr-con vs. ultra-lib problems, schools like Stanford aso have problems with BYU because unlike many schools which have religious affiliations which do not necessarily determine the nature of the reasearch going on at the school (or more importantly, the assumptions the research is based on), a significant amount of the research at BYU is based on backing up Mormon doctrine. That's probably what really bugs faculty at other schools. I doubt they are comfortable with the level of control the church has with the school. It's a shame this will never happen though. It might open things up a bit at BYU (or not), and BYU does have some outstanding ancient near east document research going on that the Pac-10 resources could probably help with.

Let's see: both NYC and Chicago are well known haunts of the Mafia. The last time I checked, SF wasn't a popular mafia hangout. Also NYC & Chicago has huge problems with urban sprawl. Doesn't really describe SF.
(SF, Oak, and SJ are very independent of each other, and hate each other a lot. Similar to Chicago and Milwaukee or Boston & Hartford). Plus, you don't think that NYC or Chicago doesn't have every social problem imaginable? The well known University of Chicago, known specifically for its sociology research, used the city of Chicago as its field for studying social problems!!!
Let's see, so SF wants Mafia connections, lots of crime, every social problem imaginable to man, and carjackings. Hmm, other than the Mafia connections, doesn't sound much different than LA to me.

I would imagine it would be virtually impossible to put together any metropolitan in the world with over 8 million people without having a ton of social problems....so that pretty well takes care of NY, Chgo, LA, Bay Area. So no argument here: New York and Chicago are loaded with social problems. Try to name a place that doesn't.

My comparison to New York and Chicago and why SF is different from LA?

Like NY and Chgo, San Francisco is a concentrated, tight city with an exciting and vibrant core. All three of these cities choke on traffic (as all cities do), but so much of each is built for walking. The streetscape matters. These are cities where people can and do want to live in the core....if (admittedly) they can afford it. These are cities with unbelivable cultural attractions, entertainment, restaurants, hustle and bustle at their very center. In LA, even with all the city has done to try to invent a core, this is hardly the case....and never will be.

IMHO, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco transcend other US cities because of that very special sense of urban buzz they create. The only other city that I can think of that has some of that degree of core attraction is Boston, and Boston, so close to NY, doesn't offer the same package the other three do. Atlanta, Houston, Denver, Phoenix, Vegas, D/FW can sprawl as much as they will and claim growth and development. However, like LA, they will never have the vibrant urban core that makes a city a city.

Hawaii should be considered strongly.

Here's a list on what Hawaii brings to the table for the PAC-10:

1) Hawaii has a Bowl game.

2) Hawaii will pay for travel expenses if the PAC-10 comes calling.

3) Every team that visits Hawaii can schedule an extra out-of-conference home game and depending on the attendance (football), that school can generate $2M to $3M just for that game alone.

4) Hawaii is a great research institution.

5) Hawaii have a 62% graduation rate for athletes. The same range with most of the other PAC-10 schools.

6) PAC-10 fans can schedule a planned vacation when you visit Hawaii. Great weather for the majority of the year with temperatures averaging in the 80's year round.

7) Hawaii have a lot of transplanted islanders living in PAC-10 territory and will support the team when UH plays on the road.

I am not from or am familar with the pacific coast but based on what I have read I think the Pac 10 should go with Hawaii and then fresno St. Why have they not been mentioned?

I think that the Utah politics rule both of those schools out. I am sorry but Colorado, Colorado St and Texas are stupid suggestions!

Given the UNLV problems and academic standards I see why they wouldnt be considered. I know you guys have said no more California schools but unless you go to New Mexico I think Fresno St and San Diego St would be looked at.

The SEC years ago when expanded didnt care about TV markets. They did what was best geographically and fan bases. South Carolina and Arkansas arent TV markets but who has the best TV contract? The SEC.

First time poster and would like feedback. Being no westerner please dont bash me if you think my selections are stupid.

Umm, Fresno State is a lot like UNLV with the academic problems. Hawaii is a good fit though. The problem is finding a team to pair Hawaii up with!!! If you looked at the Pac 10 conference closely, you would see that every team has a team that is in close proximity to it. For example, look at Oregon and Oregon State. Both programs are located in the state of Oregon. Or Stanford and Cal. Both programs are located in the Bay Area. So with that in mind, who do you pair up Hawaii with? I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is pretty darn hard!!
I'm not trying to bash you here, and I'm very glad you're contributing (we could use some more SEC influence around here!!! ;D ;D ), but just trying to give you insight I've learned from posting and reading this board for awhile (as well as other numerous other boards. ;D ;D )

You're right, the PAC 10 is easily organized with pairs. But if you add Hawaii you can just add San Diego St., which is already so close to the other 2 southern california schools that it could work out.

I also think that the PAC 10 could go with any 2 schools, nto just pairs. Colorado, UNLV, SDSU, Utah, BYU would provide access to markets the PAC 10 is not already in. Meaning, if you add BYU, there's no reason to add Utah. If you add BYU and get the Salt Lake City market, you might as well add the Las Vegas market or San Diego for your #12.

_________________


@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.

The Pac 10 is very balanced with two team state school pairs. Schedules are made easy as Arizona will travel and play Oregon on Thursday night and in state Oregon State on Saturday. Same when Oregon returns to play Arizona on Thursday and Ariz State on Saturday.

The Pac 10 has thousands of miles to make up for Arizona to Washington State.

There will need to be a lot of money for a TV championship game to promote the Pac 10 expanding to 12. Scheduling and travel could be made worse with expansion to 12 as the pair concept would be impacted.

The average fan would have to travel hundreds of miles to attend a conference championship game that would never stack up to the Rose Bowl in importance in the first place.

Interesting on a lot of Pac 10 boards, a lot of fans would actually prefer down sizing back to the Pac 8 and eliminate a couple weak sisters as opposed to adding a possible couple more teams that could become weak sisters.