Tumbler ...what happens if the new PAC 10 commissioner pushes expansion to 12?

I hope this will excite you guys about discussing the 2010-2013 next conference realignment domino drop.

The concept for this thread is that new PAC 10 commisioner pushes for expansion to 12 in 2010 or so and that is the highest tumbler that starts the realignment.

Please respond with your predictions. The idea is to try to be very realistic with your answers --- not what you'd like to see, but more to develop consensuses of what would actually occur to maybe contribute a little more to Quinn's Grid.

Start with the orginating conference and show the ripples downward through lesser conferences as far as you care to go.


-------------------

I'll start by stating if PAC 10 expansion was immenent, I think the strongest case for teams 11 & 12 would be Colorado (who would already be in the PAC 10 if UT wasn't forced to back out) and UNM.

I don't think I am out on a limb to say that both schools would jump at a chance to join the PAC 10 as it is a far superior conference brand in terms of academics than either of their current conferences. Their peer evaluations rankings and endowments would go up just by being a member. Not to mention the fact that the money from athletics would likely be better.

(There are problems with UT that I will discuss later that make Colorado the obvious big catch for the PAC 10.)



(You can suggest alternate teams coming in, but please support your logic. I hope we won't get lost in the first step. If you think my logic is reasonable, move on to what happens next in your post.)

----------------------------------------------

I think my logic is fairly sound in that it is one of the few combinations that satisfy all of the PAC 10 likely criteria.

1) Desire for "top tier research" schools

top tier reseach classification per Carnegie rating
Utah, Colorado, CSU, New Mexico
RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity)

Lower tier research classification
BYU, New Mexico State, San Diego St., Texas Tech, UNLV, UNR, UTEP, UNT
RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity)

AAU Candidates (very high research activity)
UC Davis, UC San Diego, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, UT, A&M, Rice,

2) Desire for new TV markets sizeable enough to offset additional travel costs.

New markets
Colorado - 1.9M TV housholds
New Mexico - 1.2 M TV Housholds

debateably already within the current PAC 10 footprint as LA and Arizona are dominant into Nevada and Utah.
Nevada - 1 M TV Households
Utah - 900K TV Households

3) Reasonable travel distance

No Kansas, Nebraska, UT & A&M pairing, Rice

4) Competent athletics with good fan support

Utah, BYU, UNM, CSU, Colorado

5) Plays on Sunday

No BYU

6) Are not going to attempt to force a package deal or have legislative interference.

Utah and BYU would likely push to come in together, even though that would mean spending 2 slots to add 900K TV households. It is unclear whether you could get UTAH without BYU to go with Colorado, because that would put BYU out on an island.

If bigger fish UT & AM wanted to join a Pac12, UT and A&M would be blocked by Tech and Baylor and most of the other Texas schools' alumni -- most of which dream of playing UT and A&M in conference --- not going to happen if they join the Pac 10. It is unlikely that UT wants to be another Washington in the Pac 12 now, after being the Michigan/USC/Florida of a conference built around them. Leaving OU would also be very difficult for UT fans.

I think it is sound to say that if the PAC 10 were to expand in that 2010 timeframe, UNM and Colorado would be the likely choices. They add about 3M new TV households to the PAC 10 footprint. In contrast, Arizona gives the PAC 10 ~2.3M, Washington ~2.4M, and Oregon ~2.0M.

(If you need more convincing, compare UNM to Oregon State and Washington State. UNM doesn't get smoked... Not totally what you want, but pretty solid.)

So anyway... What is next? What do the Big 12 -1 and the MWC - 1 do? What ripples do their actions cause?

You may not like it, but I say

No Order... It'll be 2 of these 5
UNLV
San Diego st
New Mexico
Hawaii
Utah...

Well, it is not that I don't like a contrary viewpoint, but I'd like to see more supporting information as to why.

UNLV & San Diego State are both RU/H: Research Universities (with only high research activity)

I'd think if the PAC10 doesn't consider BYU a research institution to the point of actually voicing that as a reason that they aren't being considered, both of these schools would likewise be eliminated.

Hawaii IS another RU/VH: Research University (with very high research activity), so you are right to assume they would be considered. Their culture is very west coast, so it is possible that they might be looked at more favorably by some than UNM, but I think the financials favor UNM.

In outlay, It is a LOT cheaper to get from arizona, colorado, or LA to Albequeque than Hawaii. In revenue, Hawaii only provides a market of 424K TV households --- less than half UNM's total.

Looking at UNLV and San Diego from a market perspective, the Pac 10 partially encircles Nevada and pretty much owns San Diego already (off the strength of UCLA, USC, and Stanford --- 3 schools with at least statewide followings). They already get a lot of coverage in Nevada and have a number of graduates out there. UNLV is not that dominant of a state's #1 school. Nevada Reno is actually the state flagship, and I can't see the PAC 10 adding the academic #2 university in a state, and I really don't see them adding UNLV and UNR --- two RU/H's --- to capture the Vegas and Reno markets = 970K--- two markets they argueably already encroach upon if not own.

I don't really look at Nevada as a new Market for them to capture, so there is a lot of --"what's the point?" in looking at expansion into Nevada.

You put too much on academics. Academics is not filling the stadiums and getting sponsors.
1 Academic University is enough hence SEC and Big 12. PAC 10 will grab a tighter hold on the west coast. UNLV and San Diego comes to mind. For more tourist appeal, Hawaii and UNLV.
For grabbing a wider fan base, Utah and New Mexico.

The next logical Domino --- the Big 12

With apologies to both PAC10 and ND fans, I consider the Big 10 to be the obvious #1 conference a notch above the PAC 10, so their actions do not affect the Big 10's extending mating dance with ND.

That said, the next affected conference in the conference pecking order is the big 12.

The loss of Colorado would actually be a positive in keeping the Big 12 conference intact. The factors that might lead UT, A&M, and OU to one day breakaway are pretty reliant up pulling most of the B12 flagships with them --- Missou, Kansas, and Colorado -- to form a block that can dictate terms. Removing Colorado probably kills any chance of UT & OU to be able to build a dream conference on the bones of the B12. so the question becomes a very simple one of replacing the 12th slot.

Candidates for the 12th spot in the B12:
Arkansas, TCU, BYU, Utah, Memphis, Colorado State, UTEP, UNT, Air Force, Houston, Rice

In the past you could have said that Nebraska would still deliver the Denver market, but it has been almost a generation since Nebraska was a national power. Losing Colorado to a superior conference like the PAC 10, could actually take the B12 off the sets in the Denver and Colorado DMAs, costing the conference 1.9M TVs.

Obviously adding Arkansas is everyone's first choice due to their history with Texas and it's ability to deliver new markets for the B12 in Little Rock, Jonesboro, and Memphis. They would add 1.299M TV households. Now keep in mind people in Arkansas don't have the buying power of People in Colorado, so this is a bigger hit than it looks, but it is survivable.

The problem is, Arkansas would have to take a pay cut and an esteem cut to downgrade from the SEC to the B12. Could it happen? Sure, there is a possibility. People up there would love to be back in a conference with UT, but how often do universities downgrade and leave money on the table? I don't see it happening to simply fill Colorado's slot in the B12. (Now maybe increases in travel costs may change the equation, but today, I don't see this.)

UT has a big stick when it comes to the academic requirements in the B12. My feeling is that they would eliminate Memphis, UTEP, UNT, and maybe Houston on those grounds.

I think all schools would be loathe to "waste" the 12th spot on a market they already solidly own, so that would eliminate TCU, UNT, Houston, & Rice.

The Texas schools have always looked at BYU more reasonably than schools in other conferences and so BYU might be their second choice. Religious affiliation is not seen as a huge negative. BYU was strongly considered as an option to save the SWC, but the idea of adding more private school votes did a lot to sour that idea. BYU is the Notre Dame of the mountain west timezone. They can generate at least some TV viewership from Nevada to Texas and Arizona to Idaho.

But if Utah couldn't get into the PAC 10 without BYU, it hardly seems likely that Utah fans would be OK with BYU bailing on Utah for the Big 12. The conference is not going to want to add two schools, let alone 2 schools from the same smallish market. The financials for a 13 or even 14 team conference are simply are not as good.

Additionally, the northern teams are not going to want to increase their travel budgets, so scratch BYU and Utah.

Looking at market sizes, Air Force's native market is Colorado Springs (326K TV households). Its is true they would strengthen national viewing numbers a bit, but the native market is quite small and doesn't give Denver. Memphis is only 667K TVHs. El Paso is only 302K.

In terms of competitiveness all of the options are decent, but Air Force would probably not work. Like all of the Military academies they do better in the lower Div 1 ranks where their lack of depth can be better disguised with good schemes and more disciplined players. They would more regularly be exposed and non-competitive in a conference like the B12.

The most logical option if, like every other university in the nation, Arkansas is not willing to leave money on the table... appears to be Colorado State.

They are a public "state" school, like OSU,KSU,and ISU.

They allow the B12 to remain relevant in Denver and (in time) the other Colorado markets.

They have the academic skins UT would require as Carnegie rates them RU/VH: Research University (with very high research activity) and they are ranked as a tier 2 academic institution by US News.

CSU does not create more travel problems for the B12 North.

CSU is a competent doormat. They draw solidly for football and basketball and would likely do much better in a higher profile conference. The northern schools would love to have their own Baylor, albeit a more competitive one.

CSU allows Nebraska to still project regional dominance.

CSU also gives another vote to preserve the B12, and as such would be favored by schools likely to lose out on a UT/OU breakaway =Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, & Baylor.

CSU also preserves the 6/6 vote balance where a school like TCU or Houston would give the OU/UT block the ability to run roughshod over Nebraska's group.


(Now, to be thorough, I will state that CSU is a member of a gentleman's agreement called "The Gang of 5". BYU, Utah, CSU, Wyoming, and Air Force recognized years ago that if they banded together they could survive. The idea was that unless the PAC 10 came calling for Utah and BYU to bring them into the BCS, the 5 would commit to each other.

It seems to me that the flipside of the coin (CSU joining the BCS)would also be a respectable reason for leaving the gang of 5 on peaceful terms.)

I think you put too little weight on academics. Did you realize that only about 9 schools of the 60 or so FBS schools outside of the BCS are ranked in the US News top two tiers?

Why do you think the BE was so disraught about the defections? In part it was because they knew that finances were going to force them to admit members that would cost them a sizeable esteem hit.

I certainly agree that academic reputation means almost nothing for the WAC, Sunbelt, and MAC, but it does appear to mean more and more as you move up the conference ranks. At the CUSA and MWC level it is seen as a factor for BCS conseration. At the BCS level it is a feather in a conference's cap.

Simply put, the rich can afford to be picky.



Additionally, I am curious as to why your list doesn't have Colorado on it as an option for expanding the PAC 10 fanbase? Denver and the other colorado markets over which the state flagship Colorado holds sway offer over twice as many TV households as Utah.

The next logical Domino --- CUSA West/New SWC

I know that some might think the next logical domino would be the MWC as they would feel a need to expand, but I think at this point, they no longer maintain even a slight advantage over CUSA.

CUSA is on ESPN. The public sees them.
The MWC is on the mountain. The public does not see them. Add in the fact that the mountain would not be relevant in Albequeque and barely relevant in Denver and you can see the problem.

TCU struggled mightily with the idea of joining the MWC over staying in CUSA. They were/are viewed that close. I think TCU would want to return to CUSA.

CUSA could expand to 14, say adding Temple or Charlotte and TCU, but that would increase the footprint, dillute the shares, increase scheduling headaches, and might not even address travel cost issues that are killing East Carolina and Marshall.

I think that TCU's interest in returning would be spur for CUSA to splinter. I think the privates (Tulsa, Tulane, Rice, SMU) would break away in an attempt to make a BCS caliber conference, or at least a more profitable conference, taking Houston and Memphis with them and joining TCU in forming a conference.

The privates recognize that a small footprint works well for them as it cuts travel expenses and gives them attendance bumps from travelling opponent's fans. They would likely want the footprint as small as possible unless it helps them get BCS consideration.

The academic status of the privates makes them more "like BCS schools" than schools like ECU or Marshall, and that is why a school like Memphis (barring an offer from the BE that may not ever come) would go with the privates over the eastern CUSA schools.

The driving force behind the conference's BCS push would be 5 of the remaining 7 tier 1 & 2 academic schools not already in the BCS at that point.

Houston is a large public who can travel some fans, and is somewhat centrally located (ie. a close game for Rice, SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane --- which will continue to help the privates' attendance numbers.)

Memphis is a basketball power and barring a BE offer, really wouldn't have any better options. This new SWC offers great TV numbers, a small travel footprint, and fewer mouths recruiting the basketball hotbed that Texas high schools have become. With promises of more basketball schools soon, Memphis would bite.

Who would be the 8th member of the new SWC? Who will put them over the football threshold of 8? Lots of options there and I don't have a firm answer on which is the best.

Candidates for the 8th spot in the new SWC:
BYU, Utah, Air Force, UTEP, UNT, Texas St., UTSA, LA Tech, Ark St., ULL, S. Miss., UAB, and USA


Of those, BYU and Utah split as academic schools. BYU is ranked in the second tier in the US News rankings; Utah is ranked in the 3rd. Utah ranked in a higher teir by Carnegie than BYU as a research school though, RU/VH to RU/H.

Bottom line is that both schools are BCS-like in academics and both schools have very strong athletic programs. They are the only two schools on the list that would increase the conferences's BCS chances.

My gut feeling is that the privates would want BYU as the 8th. BYU is high profile and a private. They are a very solid BB school. They are the number 1 attended football team outside of the BCS, drawing 60K a game. There are a smattering of Mormons near every one of the private schools. BYU could actually be the rare distant distant candidate that would draw fairly well on the road for football and basketball.

I think BYU would feel pressure to include Utah and would insist upon both schools being added. I think as much as the privates would balk at a multiple trips to Utah --- Houston or New Orleans to Utah is a heck of a long flight, they would recognize that Utah is a net positive for BCS admission as it puts all of the top academic non-BCS schools in the same conference.

Additionally Memphis would probably be vocal on pushing for Utah as they are a well developed BB school too.

Utah and BYU would put the new SWC at 9 teams. At that point there really isn't any reason to expand to 12 teams. There aren't any more non-BCS schools with indisputable BCS credentails out there after Utah and BYU. A desire by the privates to limit travel costs as much as possible and to not dilute shares would eliminate many of the other contenders.

Air Force, like Army and Navy, doesn't recruit the depth in football to ever be a dominant team in a BCS conference. In BB, they rarely have the talent to be more than a middle of the pack team. I have to think the Texas schools would balk at a trip out there for that.

UTEP would likely be passed over as their market is too small and too distant and as it would give the privates the ability to insist they didn't kill CUSA. Universities are very dogged about not killing other conferences. Technically, UTEP, S. MISS, UAB, Marshall, UCF, and ECU would still have their NCAA berth and could continue as CUSA.

My take as a Dentonite, is that SMU has softened quite a bit on their anti-UNT stance over the years, but frankly the mean green doesn't add a thing to the new SWC's BCS chances. Additionally the return of TCU would likely have both DFW privates returning to the policy of trying to keep UNT from ascending and disrupting their tenuous hold on the non BCS DFW recruits.

UTSA and Texas St. are upgrades and would diminish the conference if they were allowed to jump right in. LA Tech, Ark St., ULL, and S. Miss., don't add any markets of note and aren't in Texas. UAB and USA are decent markets, but would be a travel negative to all the privates except Tulane.


I think at this point I could see St. Louis, a non-football private with a good academic reputation be recruited to pump up BB. St. Louis would likely come back as they have a long history with Houston and Memphis and the New SWC would be higher profile academically than the CUSA they bailed on and higher profile athletically than the Atlantic 10. St. Louis has a market of 1.244M TVH's.

That would be 9 for Football, 10 for BB.

New SWC
Utah
BYU
Tulsa
TCU
SMU
Rice
Houston
Tulane
Memphis
St. Louis (no football)

TCU, Tulsa, Utah, and BYU would be semi-regular bowl teams in Football. St. Louis, Memphis, Tulsa, Utah and BYU would be regular tourney candidates in BB. 7/9 football schools would be top academic schools. The privates all have enormous endowments --- a factor of university esteem and reputation that also gets the attention of BCS schools. That hits me as as close to BCS caliber as any non-BCS conference could get.

With the MWC essentially dead, the next tumbler is the remaining CUSA teams.

The next logical Domino --- CUSA East/New CUSA

UTEP, S. MISS, UAB, Marshall, UCF, and ECU would still satisfy the 6/5 rule, but clearly all of the east schools would want to get rid of the trip to El Paso as soon as possible and add short trips in the SEC region. UTEP for it's part would also probably want out ASAP as the TV money would be significantly lower without the Houston and DFW markets and the travel would be longer. I could see a deal worked where UTEP maintained the bare minimum to allow CUSA to keep their automatic bid -- say basketball membership only (not sure if that would cut it)--- and joined some other conference for their other sports.

Candidates for the 6th- 8th spots in the new CUSA:
LA Tech, Ark St., ULL, W. Kentucky, USA, Troy, Jacksonville State, Georgia State, Georgia Southern, Temple, Charlotte, FIU, FAU

Travel distance would again be a key factor, but the size of markets ---both for current members and potential members would play a different kind of role in this tier of conference. CUSA east only has UCF (1.434M) UAB (.730M) UTEP (generously .439M), S. Miss (very generously .649M), ECU (.276M), and Marshall (.476M). That totals 4.004M and averages out to .667M per school---significantly lower than the averages of the conferences we have dealt with above.

Additionally there are few candidates in this geographic region who are both good, established athletic teams with solid facilities and have markets of that enlarge the conference TV household average.

Looking at the positive side, CUSA could look at teams that have .400-.500M markets, where conferences with larger TV household average would be bleeding far too much to allow in more than once in a blue moon. A 12 team league with a championship game for extra revenue probably makes sense, but I suspect they would instead favor tying create an impression of strength be choosing only strong programs and to get the share per team up as much as they can with a smaller conference lineup.

The obvious first choice for the new CUSA is Charlotte. Charlotte needs a home for football and CUSA needs to save some face. A return of Charlotte would help a lot. For that, they'd likely be willing to offer to move all sports but basketball out of the A10. The A10 might be OK with that as Charlotte is an undistinguished academic school and as they are on the fringe of their conference footprint add to all A10 members' travel costs. For now, CUSA might be OK with that as they have UTEP filling one BB slot. The Charlotte DMA is 1.085M TVH's.

There are strong arguments for all 3 of the last Sunbelt champions -- Middle Tennessee State, Troy, and Florida Atlantic. Obviously all 3 have shown recent athletic competence and as such could be invited up without losing face. All are solidly sized universities with enrollments ranging from 22-27K.

Middle Tennessee has good sized facilities and is in a good DMA with .986M TV households --- even though they are the #2 team in the DMA. They would be a comfort for Marshall. Their stadium seats 31K; Their arena 11.5K

In spite of Troy's proximity to Auburn, an argument can be made that they are more of a local phenomena while Auburn is a statewide one. It might be reasonable to argue that Troy has a loyal following in several small DMAs making up about .500M TV households. Their stadium seats 30K; Their arena 4K.

Florida Atlantic is located in the West Palm Beach DMA - .775M TVHs. Their inclusion would give more access into the Florida talent hotbed. They have a 30K stadium under construction scheduled to open in 2010; Their arena sits 5K.

I think the new CUSA would stop there. That gets their average TV Household number up to .768K. That's about as good as they can hope for in face saving moves. They don't want to kill their feeder league --- The Sunbelt, dilute their share, or expand the footprint in a time of high travel costs.

LA Tech and ULL hit me as too far away from the more vocal complainers about travel -- Marshall, UCF, and ECU. Additionally their DMAs are nothing special.

ULL is has good sized facilities and decent fan support. Generously, they might be able to claim relevance in 3 DMAs for a total of .408M TVH's. Their stadium seats 31K; Their arena 11.5K.

LA Tech is too far west to please schools like Marshall and ECU, but they were a finalist for admission last time and would be a good candidate for a berth in a western division in a 12 team setup. Counting both their native DMA and the neighboring Shreveport DMA, they total .561M TV Households. Their stadium seats 31K; Their arena 11.5K

Arky St. and W. Kentucky DMAs are too small.

Temple with the sizable Philly market would be a decent add for football only, but is too far north for full membership in a poor mostly southeastern conference.

Jacksonville is in the UAB DMA and along with Georgia Southern and Georgia State, are in the process of moving up and such would not be considered. Likewise USA, despite their fantastic stadium and good DMA would likely be passed over in this round. FIU has a terrific DMA, but would likely also be passed over in this round of expansion as their non-competitiveness on the field and stadium issues are likely to retard their fan base development for a few more years.

I think they would earmark USA, FIU, and either Georgia State or Georgia Southern for future consideration.

NEW CUSA
UCF
UAB
UTEP (BB only), Charlotte (all other sports)
S. Miss
ECU
Marshall
Middle Tennessee State
Troy
Florida Atlantic

The next logical Domino --- The WAC

Some might argue that the New CUSA would be lower tier conference than the WAC and perhaps after the shifting is done it would be, but I'd argue against that based on where they started 2009 in an age of high travel costs.

The WAC would probably love to get to a point with membership where they could let their two problem child schools (La Tech and NMSU) walk and dramatically cut the travel costs of all schools involved.

Candidates for the 9th-12th spots in the new WAC:
San Diego State, Wyoming, UNLV, Air Force, UTEP, UNT, Texas St., UTSA, Ark St., ULL,

San Diego State with their media market, would be instantly welcomed back with a sigh of relief by a TV household starved WAC . Likewise Wyoming (Denver DMA) and UNLV would be welcomed back. I can't shake the feeling that Air Force might think about going Indy like Army and Navy, but lets say they return too.

I think UTEP might strongly consider a return in that scenario, but admins there might stop that thinking as they have been a ton healthier in a more eastern/Texas based conference. (That is assuming it would be offerred --- not a given.)

UNT, Texas St., UTSA, Ark St., ULL would be seen as too distant for most conference members to approve their admission, something that probably would not sit well with La. Tech or NMSU, and might in fact lead to their desire to bolt (with league approval) if something better comes along.

New WAC
San Diego State
SJ State
Utah St.
Wyoming
UNLV
UNR
Air Force
Boise St.
Fresno St.
Hawaii
Idaho
LA Tech (one foot out the door)
NMSU (In for now)

The next logical Domino --- UTEP, UNT, La Tech, Arky State, and the upgrading Southland Schools/The SouthWestland Conference

The factors would be there for a new conference to emerge in Texas. UTEP would be stuck. Readmission to the WAC might be a bitter pill for the school to accept as they were faltering badly in that conference --- if it was even possible! Recall for years UTEP blocked NMSU's admission... LA Tech would be as isolated as ever. The Sunbelt would be gutted of their best schools including some of their better markets, would still have an enormous footprint, and looking at totally rebuilding, none of which would please UNT or their like minded partner Arky State.

Candidates for the SWLand Conference:
NMSU, UTEP, UNT, Texas St., UTSA, Sam Houston, Lamar, LA Tech, Ark St., ULL,

At this moment 4 Southland schools in the #2, #3, #4 and #11 markets in Texas will be looking to set up shop in FBS. UNT, LA Tech, and Arkansas State all have history with the southland schools. UNT (in the #1 DMA in Texas) previously rejected the WAC over travel costs as they recognize the value of staying in a sensible footprint. It is likely that the UNT powerbrokers would jump ship on the sunbelt and that Arky St. would follow.

LA Tech has only stayed in the WAC to avoid having to swallow their pride and join the sunbelt with their unwanted, spontaineously grown, conjoined twin ULM. Cutting travel expenses in a conference that would not seem a huge drop would immediately sell them.

If UNT and LA Tech were in, there is enough face saving cover for UTEP to join. UTEP (#7 & #14 DMAs) might not have any better options.

Recall that all of the established schools have conferences that could house them until the Southwestland is ready for business.

To make this work, the southland foursome would need to drag along two other members from the southland to be BB only or non-football members. This would have them legal ground to demand a BB tourney bid by satisfying the 6/5 rule. To minimize travel costs and get the max TV benefit, SFA and UTA make the most sense. They would probably bite on an arangement that might be temporary for some D1 TV money to help upgrade facilities. SFA (#8) would still play football in the Southland.

(The Southland would be unaffected as they prepared well for this possibility by upgrading to 12 in 2006. It is in their long term interest to play along and have a willing partner conference at the FBS level.)

New SWLand
LA Tech
UNT
Arky State
UTEP
Texas State
Lamar
Sam Houston
UTSA
SFA (no football - temporary?)
UTA (no football - temporary?)


TVH total for the 8 FBS schools =7.161. With the 2 temporary members the total is semi-conservatively 7.421 for an average TVH share of .742M --- just less than the new CUSA. The ten teams would have a direct presence in Texas's #1,2,3,4,7,8,11 DMAs, and in time might also be seen as holding sway in 4 more of the smaller DMAs. Add in the fact that they are all medium to large publics and you can make the case to the networks that the conference would be relevant in all of Texas's DMAs. I'd guess within 5 years this conference would fall just about even with the New CUSA in the pecking order.

The last FBS logical Domino --- the Sunbelt

The sunbelt is an object of scorn as you move away from it's core. Fans at UTSA and Texas State loudly speculate if the sunbelt is "good enough" for their schools. (It is not looked on so harshly by people in the footprint.) Rebuilding again would do nothing to change that. Luckily for the sunbelt they have a pair of non-football schools and a load of regional teams moving up to FBS anticipating conference berths will be available. Clearly, they see the sunbelt being raided and berths being created.

As usual, the Sunbelt takes what they can get and will again get by regulations on smoke and mirrors until all schools are FBS compliant.

New Sunbelt
UALR (no Football)
NO (no Football)
FIU
ULL
ULM
USA
W. Kentucky
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Jacksonville State

If all of this came to pass, I think you'd see the following pecking order.

BCS conferences
1) Big 10
2) PAC 12
3) SEC
4 tie) Big 12/ACC
6) BE (FB BE)
7) SWC

Non-BCS Conferences
8 tie) CUSA/WAC/SWLand
11) MAC
12) Sunbelt

I think the SWC would be admitted to the BCS as most, if not all of their schools have good arguments for being member BCS schools. Admitting the SWC simply takes a lot of highly ranked academic schools with sizeable endowment warchests out of the BCS opposition lawsuit group and implys a willingness to share BCS funds with conferences "as they mature". That said, I would not be suprised to see the BE and SWC being forced to essentially "split" a 17M BCS conference member share based on their smaller lineups vs. the other 12 member BCS conferences.

Do I anticipate all of this occuring? No. There are too many factors that we don't know today that will change the final equation. What happens with the BE? Will schools like App. State, Montana, Deleaware, George Mason, Old Dominion, or Virginia Commonwealth, or UMASS decide to jump to FBS? Enough of those schools moving up could trigger a split in the MAC. Will the MAC shift any? Will the MVC schools get the FBS religion? Just too many factors. That said, I hope this was an interesting read.

It was an intersting read FiniteMan. Thanks for the posting it!

This is excellent analysis, but from a realistic standpoint I'd eliminate the chances of Colorado or any other team moving from the Big 12. With the exception of the Big East, whose membership seems to be constantly teetering, I can't see any members of the other BCS conferences moving. While there might be some advantages on the margins for Colorado in terms of moving to the Pac-10 on paper, when you take into account the fact that they would be paying a whole lot of break-up fees with the Big 12, likely deal with lawsuits that would make the Big East/ACC fights look like minor skirmishes, and add in conference membership fees to the Pac-10 all for what as of now is a smaller television contract from my understanding, it seems like it would be a lot of risk for Colorado to move in exchange for what would be relatively small rewards at best. At the very least, this is in no way a no-brainer for Colorado, and I think it would take a no-brainer deal to get any of the BCS members outside of the Big East to move. The Big Ten and Pac-10 are the most "egalitarian" of the BCS conferences (that is, they are the conferences that are committed to distributing conference revenues equally among its members), so that makes them the least likely to give a special deal to any team, whether it's Notre Dame, Colorado, or some other big-name school.

On the other side of the coin, I don't think that the Pac-10 offers membership to any school other than a no-brainer on its end, as well. Regardless of what you think personally about the ACC's expansion 5 years ago, from a business perspective, BC, VT and Miami were brand-name schools that brought with them significant television markets and cash flows. I don't think there's a school out west right now (excluding any Big 12 members that have little incentive to move) that even matches what BC brought to the table for the ACC, much less the stronger programs of VT and Miami. Utah and Colorado State are good schools and cover TV markets, but they aren't the marquee programs that would bring in more revenue for the Pac-10 schools on a per-school basis than what the conferences already receive now (just having a conference championship game isn't enough alone).

At the same time, I think that 2015 is really the next date that we can realistically expect any movement on the BCS conference front. That happens to be the year when the current Rose Bowl/ABC and new Notre Dame/NBC contracts expire. At the end of the day, the action is more on the "What are ND and the Big East going to do?" side of the ledger out east than what's happening out west.

Not only does the Pac-10 NOT NEED a tighter hold on the west coast, IT WILL COST THEM MONEY TO DO SO.

IT WILL COST THEM MONEY. Therefore, it simply WILL NOT happen.

Tom Hansen spelled this out emphatically, and the presidents were (AND ARE) the people pulling the strings of the commissioner.

BTW, academics be d**ned. It matters in a PC way, little else, merely because it happens to jibe with the economic argument. It doesn't cost Pac-10 presidents any money to sound snooty right now. When it does, the tune will change. It won't change for UNLV or San Diego or Utah or Hawai'i... and New Mexico is too small.

It costs each Pac-10 school money to add a school west of the Continental Divide, because TV networks WILL NOT INCREASE THE PAYOUT to them for that. It has to be Colorado and somebody... and Illi is right to say that this is not a no-brainer for Colorado.

(It's my Monday venting. I feel better now.)