Well, they are located in Florida...

They were a Cincinnati loss to East Carolina away from going to the Hawaii Bowl in 2002...

They did hire Lee Rose (1980) after he had very recently taken both UNC-Charlotte (1977) and Purdue (1980) to the Final Four...

But Memphis...seriously.

Huge Market (not that Tampa isn't or anything), both fball and bball are having great sucess and are on the rise.

Cmon!

Memphis also went thirty years between bowl appearances...and then you remember that those two bowls were the Pasadena Bowl (aka Junior Rose Bowl) and the New Orleans Bowl...

Yeah, but compared to USF...

Memphis isn't in the NE footprint. USF lets them stay in Florida, which geographically isn't in the NE footprint it is a major recruiting area for Big East schools.

True, Memphis unfortunately is not wanted by anyone.

Know this topic has come up before, and know all the arguments the PAC10 folks would have with BYU, but the most natural way to expand the PAC 10 would be to add both BYU and Utah. The advantages:

1) contiguous geographic footprint
2) solid academic programs (Utah better than BYU)
3) fans travel well
4) large stadiums, and Utah is apparently enlarging more
5) historically the most dominant programs in the MWC, previous WAC, and previous SKyline
6) solid bb program at Utah
7) dismantle the MWC very substantially so it would have to remerge in some fashion with the WAC, and would have diminished stature for years

Suspect the Pac10 is too comfy with the way it presently exists, however, does not want to share more money, and would not ever move unless all the other conferences had gone to twelve and championship games.

Another stealth option would be Utah and Hawaii. Gets rid of the aversion the PAc10 has for things BYU

Restatement time:

The Pac-10 already has TV market share in Salt Lake City. The Pac-10 recruits reasonably well there. This is why they believe they don't need to add Utah.

Mind you, I've advocated Utah / BYU before. BYU brings more than just a Utah population... but between the heavy foreign contingent of the LDS church, and what might be a western-based congregation, the Pac-10 probably harbors the same conclusion for BYU that it does for Utah. The not playing on Sundays issue (soccer, some basketball, et cetera) is just gravy on top.

If Utah is that way, the Nevada schools are doubly so. Hawaii isn't worth the bother for just being way out there.

The Pac-10's lack of movement comes from the same well that generated the ACC expansion. TELEVISION. If the television money doesn't actually increase with the expansion, then there's no reason for each school to lose money trying to expand simply for the sake of expanding.

As for javaman's other points-

Utah's academics ARE an attraction to Pac-10 presidents... so the failure of the Pac-10 to officially "consider" Utah for expansion should say something about the real priorities of the conference. Just another piece of proof for Lash's statement on loyalty.

Stanford didn't exactly draw much from BYU for their game this year. Just a few years ago (perhaps in a darker age), Utah fans wouldn't even travel to Boise. That's considerably closer than Laramie and Vegas, for those of you keeping score.

Most of all, the Pac-10 is not at all concerned about competition from the MWC or WAC. They're concerned about keeping up with the big schools. The problems faced by the Pac are far more related to recruiting problems on their own turf versus eastern schools, not mountain schools.

Utah appears the strongest possibility if the PAC 10 did expand. Looking at geography, academics, facilities, recent history in bb and fb, they have made some notable distinctions.
Now, how they are partnered, may be further issue. So, BYU has a religious dimension and does not play on Sunday? I do not necessarily view Utah, a state school, and BYU as twin, in other words, one has to go with the other. However, all things considered, BYU still has one of the strongest athletic followings in the region.
The PAC 10 is not going to find two "perfect" teams to add. Every school considered will have a detraction, be it distance, academics, facilities, tradition, or any combination therein.

I think this "travel partner" idea is antiquated and totally irrelevant to the major conferences today. If it was really important, the Pac 10 might have kept Idaho to go with Washington St.

I doubt the day will come when the PAC 10 would add BOTH BYU and Utah. But if Colorado ever came calling, I'm sure the PAC 10 would look to take one of the Utah pair to join with Colorado.

_________________


@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.

It's not irrelevant in the West with respect to BB and the minor sports. Not only the expense but the difficulty of winter travel out there is something to consider. For many years the Pac10 has practiced travel partner scheduling - even though WSU is not exactly close to UDubya.

Even if they use existing pairs, I just don't believe it would even be a consideration. Travel is not a huge part of the budget. It is obviously a sizable number, but not percentagewise. Rice's report gave a lot of detail on their travel costs and it simply was minor compared to a lot of the other costs. For a BCS conference, it would be a very small %.

The move to the CUSA from the western WAC by the 4 schools was more because their fans and alumni didn't care about the WAC schools. No matter how good Hawaii or Fresno was, noone cared. Student's loss of time was a bigger factor than the travel $.