I think the PAC 10 would like to invite UNLV and Hawaii.
if not, then
3rd San Diego st
4th Colorado
5th New Mexico

I don't think they want to invite anyone since they are content at 10.

They tried in the 90's to get Texas and colorado but it never worked out. Texas likely wouldnt' want to be the lone Texas team in the conference. That said, Colorado wouldn't have that problem since they are the top dog in Co. The Pac-10 could add a BYU and a Colorado and gain a stronger share in the mountain states.

As for UNLV...perhaps in time. Hawaii is hardly wanted in the WAC and WASN'T wanted by the MWC due to travel costs. SDSU falls into the category with Fresno...Cal St. schools that would likely get blocked based on academics. New Mexico is a stretch as well since they add no real market.

_________________


@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.

in the next 50-75 years, they should add: (listed by who will be travel partners)
BYU and Utah
Fresno State and Hawaii
UNLV and San Diego State

Football wise, BYU and Utah have pretty much proven they belong in the Pac-10 (Utah's 12-0 season in 2004, BYU's back-to-back 11 win seasons which ended with wins over Pac-10 teams in the Las Vegas Bowl in 2006 and 2007). Not to mention the Pac-10 has a better TV contract (ABC/ESPN and FSN) than the Mountain West (CSTV). San Diego State is going to need some time, they have a horrible record against the current Pac-10 membership (including a winless record against UCLA), but UNLV has had good seasons in basketball (1990 national champs, did not lose again until 1991 Final Four). Fresno State has good FB and BB programs (usually), and Hawaii FB is so far undefeated this year.

I agree that the Pac 10 will expand only if the Big TenEleven does. The Pac 10 is finally happy with its complete round robin schedule and "zone" scheduling whereby every non-LA school gets to play one date in LA each year, invaluable for recruiting purposes. That would not be possible for all of "northern divison" members under a 12-team format.

Texas probably no longer has an interest in being the BC of the Pac 10 and even if they did, the Texas legislature (A&M, Baylor, and Tech) would block it. (Let me not overstate --- A&M alumni would block it.)

UNLY and Hawaii are not academically strong enough.

SD State is in a relatively strong conference, so there will not be outrage pushing to get them added.

Fresno State is academically inferior and will be a tough fight for PAC 10 inclusion. Really any Cal State school is a tough sell.

Colorado and CSU would be a nice duo, but are far out of the footprint.

Utah and BYU are a nice duo, but BYU's "sunday issue" and the general issues with mormonisim in general and conservative culture make the two schools a bitter pill for the liberal PAC 10.

I have thought that a Utah/Colorado package would work if there were immediate pressure to expand to 12, but would Utah be eligable to accept it, or would BYU alumni block it hoping to force their inclusion over CU's?

New Mexico has a nice sized market, but as it has been pointed out the buying power is not there in their market, making it a lot less valueable for advertisers. Their academics have a long way to go and they are way out of the footprint.

I think Pac 10 expansion is at least 10 years away and will only come about if the Big 10 brings in a 13th school to be their 12 football member or if the California State Legislature makes serious noise about forcing 2 more schools in --- IMO a likely possibility.

I am going to throw out 2 names that are not mentioned, but IMO make sense as the eventual #11 & #12 teams.

UC-Davis
UC- San Diego

The california public educational system is a system of haves and have nots. The UC schools are the haves. The Cal State schools are the Have nots. In Texas terms, the UC schools are UT and A&M; The Cal State schools are Texas Tech, UNT, and Texas State.

If any school is going to have the political juice to force it's way into the PAC 10, it is going to be an academically excellent UC school with a well developed athletic program and no FBS home.

UC-Davis.

UC-Davis is slowly ramping up to make the jump to FCS. Their eventual goal has to be the Pac 10. Their academics are impeccable (ranked tier 1 #42), they are a large school (29K enrollment) and are near, but not in a large city (Sacramento). They have a good athletic program with only football lagging behind. The momentum to push football suggests a desire to reach the FBS level eventually. Sacramento is the #20 media market in the US and does not have an NFL team killing collegiate football potential.

Their Rival Sacramento State is FCS and seems a likely candidate to join fellow cal-stater fresno state and San Jose State in the WAC. Sac State and Davis are very close together and the WAC will probably not want to add a school that close.

This will create the neccessary "stranded elite" scenario. My thoughts are that Davis can get the political will to generate momentum to get them into the PAC 10 and that UCLA and UC Berkley will see the writing on the wall and turn the situation to their advantage by insisting that UC SD jumps to IA as well.

"UC SD? They hate the concept of Div 1." Very True. But when the UC elite are faced with the idea that an academically undeservind Cal State school might be added instead, I think the appropriate pressure could be placed on UC SD by UCLA and Berkely to make them take the jump. UC SD is a 25K enrollment school ranked 38th academically in the nation. San Diego is the #27 Media market in the nation and while it does have the chargers killing UCSD and SD State football chances of becoming football elites, there is no NBA team here, so the school could become a Div 1 BB power.

This gives the PAC 10 solid holds on the Sacramento and San Diego Markets (#3 &4 in Cali) which over time could atrophe---if the WAC becomes the Cal State Universities' Div 1 conference or especially if the MWC manages to get into the BCS through hook or crook, so it adds real value to the PAC 10, which is why I think this scenario has legs.

This scenario makes a lot of sense in the flexibility it adds. the Pac 10 could go to a 6/6 split in a number of ways. My personal favorite is to put UCSD in the south division and UC Davis in the North. UCLA and USC could swap divisions every 2 years to ensure that whichever LA school that is currently dominant will face the best outlying school in a home and home after 2 years. That gives stability, isn't hard to figure out, and leave no Pac 10 school feeling "cheated".

San Diego State's conference isn't THAT strong. However, the Pac-10 OWNS that market (see Holiday Bowl affiliation, crowd spikes when UCLA visits, etc.). San Diego State has a presence, but the Pac-10 is on easily found TV.




You miss the REAL footprint. That footprint is states with primary population centers west of the continental divide, which happens to include, hold the phones, UTAH. Idaho and Montana, too. Why, you ask? ABC shows Pac-10 games primarily in these markets. Some of that is the exodus from California landing in those states, and that includes fans who'd rather watch BCS teams than the local schools, as well as some locals who think they're enlightened by acting the same way. The Pac-10 may not OWN Utah the way they OWN San Diego, but they have essential control. That's why Colorado IS in the footprint if the Pac-10 makes the move. However, some of that is Colorado's call. I doubt they'd budge at this point.




Stanford ain't liberal. Phil Knight, whose surrogate is the AD at Oregon, ain't liberal. That's overstated. However, the Pac-10 schedules too many Sunday basketball games to be comfortable with BYU's otherwise promising TV presence. Meanwhile, ABC is the roadblock here.

I've said this before... if Utah gets big enough to have its own sway as a TV market, then the Pac-10 adds Utah before the MWC benefits from it too much. BYU probably can't block it, but perhaps wouldn't want to.




USC throws out too much money to politicians for that to ever be an issue, unless they wanted to. The Rose Bowl is THAT lucrative.




Believe me, schools will feel cheated by that whole California blather, starting with USC and perhaps UCLA. It's called greed.

I even doubt the notion that the Pac-10 will expand if the Big 10 does. Unless Colorado changes their mind, or unless there's a massive population explosion in a currently lax market, there's nowhere to expand to.

A conference like the PAC 10 don't concern itself with travel cost. UNLV and Hawaii are tourist spots. What fan will refuse to trip to Las Vegas or Hawaii to support their team.

Pac-10 CONFERENCE SCHOOLS concern themselves with making money. The travel issue isn't the problem. The millions of bucks lost because neither UNLV nor Hawaii grows the TV footprint IS the problem. A president at Oregon State would get fired for approving something that would cost maybe a million a year to the school.

British Columbia would probably have a shot once they move to Division I, although that's a generation out at this point.

In the end, markets would be key for the Pac-10. There are no clear cut leaders right now when it comes to schools. But if 10 years down the road, there are market increases (and school facility upgrades) then you will see schools come on the radar. Las Vegas fits this category. SLC might eventually as well as San Diego, Fresno, and even Abq, New Mexico. But for now, the only school that the Pac-10 would consider right away would be Colorado, since it would add the Denver market. If the Pac-10 admins saw past the religious affiliation of BYU and instead to the national fanbase (especially in the west), they could be a candidate as well.

_________________


@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.

Unfortunately, BYU and Utah (influenced heavilly by the LDS church) will not play on Sundays, and that is keeping them out of the Pac 10. Again, the dollars lost from not playing on Sundays (especially basketball) is the motivation against accepting them, and not their faith by itself.

PAC 10 scenarios and speculations off Yahoo Answers from posters:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071205223150AA84umF

It's probably time for a reset.

BYU and Utah not playing on Sundays would matter... IF THE PAC-10 WANTED THEM.

ABC shows primarily Pac-10 games in the Utah market, therefore ABC will not pay the Pac-10 a dime more on their contract (and Fox wouldn't pay much more), therefore Pac-10 schools LOSE money if they add Utah schools. Or Nevada. Or Idaho. Or Hawaii. Therefore no expansion with any of the smaller states.

New Mexico is not in this footprint. However, that state is too small. Forget that.

Colorado is probably big enough to cause an increase. Texas certainly is. However, they don't want to, so it won't happen.

Many, MANY years down the road, British Columbia is an interesting wildcard. I might argue that Vancouver gets enough S**ttle TV that the Pac-10 already owns THAT market, but that's getting mighty presumptious. Moreover, hockey is THE thing in Vancouver, though there are enough fans of other sports that UBC could cobble together a following. From what I understand, high schools in BC play American rules for football, which might mean something... and might not. Wildcard, yes, not necessarily likely.

San Diego State isn't in the WAC. THAT's what I was getting at. If they were, there might be real pressure to push them in the legislature. As it is now, the MWC is seen as a comfortable and appropriate home by most of their supporters and alumni.




I strongly disagree. I think if Colorado got the call again, they would again rush to say yes. It is simply a much higher caliber of conference in terms of reputation than the Big 12.




That was the arguement as to why the PAC 10 proposal was UT and Colorado and not UT and A&M years ago. Certainly, even back then, A&M was more respected than Colorado.

It could be an overstated argument, but it is still a widely held one.

With regards to Stanford not being liberal, I have two siblings who graduated from Stanford and I spent a summer in my late high school years at Stanford. It was pretty liberal back then. IMO it is where liberal eggheads go. God bless 'em.




I am just saying that if you put both the LA schools in the south division --- lets say --- you would have a lot of schools in the north division's recruiting dry up.




I posted an editorial under the news articles section by a guy who speculates that the PAC 10 commissioner who was supposedly forced out recently was one of the main advocates against PAC 10 realignment. I think you have rightly mentioned a number of reasons against expansion, but there are also reasons for expansion now that perhaps his age had lead him to not consider as much as a younger commisioner (his replacement) might.

It could be with him out that the PAC 10 MO is not to "hold off on 12 until the Big 10 goes to 12".

Regarding expansion, we may have all given UNM too little credit as a viable PAC 10 candidate. UNM may only be a tier 3 university, but so is the University of Utah who we all push. CSU is only a the tail end of tier 2, barely ahead of tier 3. Just like Utah, CSU, and Colorado, UNM is ranked as a Research University (with very high research activity) by the Carnegie Foundation. BYU, a tier 2 school, is ranked one tier lower as a Research University (with only high research activity). The PAC 10 has in the past not considered BYU a "true" research institution. It seems like if that is their criteria, in their academic evaluations, UNM might be just as viable as Utah, a notch above BYU.

UNM is a storied basketball school. Colorado flirted with being a football elite in the recent past. Both schools draw fairly well ---an important fact as they could end up being the Mississippi and Mississippi State of the PAC 10. The fans will still come out for middle of the pack to losing teams. They don't expect too much/aren't spoiled.

Finally as stated before, while the buying power in UNM's viewing areas is modest compared to Utah, UNM does have some sway in 3 DMAs that account for about 25% more TV households and most importantly, like Colorado's DMAs, they are virgin markets for the PAC 10.

Arizona has 3 DMAs that have about 2.3M TV Households. A Colorado/UNM expansion would yield about 3M NEW TV households for the PAC 10. That isn't insignificant --- it is in fact a larger TV household yield than Oregon's, Arizona's, or Washington's duos add --- and is probably worth doing if the PAC 10 feels a need to expand.

A Colorado/UNM expansion makes more TV and athletic sense than anything else at all reasonable (UT and A&M fall in the unreasonable range, IMO.) I can come up with for an impending expansion, and ...unlike Utah... UNM and Colorado do not have a higher profile, and more powerful university in their state that might block their move to the PAC 10. Both are both flagships and by far the dominant schools in their states.

I don't think there's any juice for New Mexico. I don't think that EXCITES ABC to jack up the $$$, and THAT (not academics) is the key factor here. The academic argument accidentally excludes the same schools as the money argument does, and the Pac-10 knows its PC well enough to determine which argument to use.

It's certainly not enough for the Oregon and Washington schools to abandon yearly LA trips.