Pulling from footballgod's thread about running the SEC, what would you do if you were given the keys to the conference. Do you keep the staus quo? Are teams evicted? Are teams brought in? What is the logic behind your decisions?

Feel free to question others' decisions, but don't be a wimp --- put your own ideas up first!

I am going to discuss what I think will happen first and then what I would do.

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 UCSD jumps to IA as well.

"UC San Diego? Like NYU they hate the concept of Div 1." Very True. But when the UC elite are faced with the idea that an "academically undeserving" Cal State school might be added instead, I think the appropriate pressure could be placed on UCSD by UCLA and Berkely to make them take the jump. UCSD 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 would give 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". USC and UCLA would play each other every season "OOC".

I think this is a best case scenario for the PAC 10 in terms of expansion, so I would push for it ASAP. (UT is off the table as they have developed a taste for conference leadership. Colorado & CSU are pretty far out of the PAC 10 footprint, Utah and BYU offer a market half the size of the UC schools and BYU offers scheduling difficulties. UNR & UNLV offer the same size market share as the Utah schools and are closer, but are comparitively academic dogs. None of these schools admission would allow the LA school split to allow the entire PAC 10's fringe schools to recruit the rich LA high school football market.

PAC 12
Oregon State
Oregon
Washington
Washington State
UC-Davis
USC/UCLA

Arizona State
UCLA/USC
Arizona
California
Stanford
UCSD

If I were the Pac-10 Commish, I would say to get in, you need to have a good TV market, and some good sports teams. High academics are recommended, but not required. With that in mind, I go after 4 MWC schools and 2 WAC schools:

MWC: BYU, Utah, UNLV, and San Diego State
WAC: Fresno State and Hawaii

I divide the newly-enlarged Pac-10 into divisions:

North:
BYU
California
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Utah
Washington
Washington State

South:
Arizona
Arizona State
UCLA
Fresno State
Hawaii
UNLV
San Diego State
USC

In football, the 4 California schools that were longtime conference members become permanent cross-division rivals. As do the Utah and Arizona schools. I would pursue a longer regular season to continue to allow more non-conference games to be played.

Texas and A&M - realistically I don't think it'll happen but if I was commish I would push these

North:
WSU
UW
Oregon State
Oregon
Stan
Cal

South:
USC
UCLA
UA
ASU
UT
A&M

Only Panther would NOT be immediately fired as commissioner by the school presidents, though Stanford and California would probably be physically angry about Panther's suggestion.

The reason everyone else would be fired- you just proposed that 8 taxpayer-supported institutions and two large private schools expand to lose money. ABC would not expand the contract amount to cover schools already within the footprint.

Any wise expansion probably has to start with Colorado... and who accompanies them is a definite mystery, since I'm pretty sure Texas will only listen to feelers while seeking to stuff their own coffers. However, me suggesting that could get ME fired, because if you're an Oregon or Washington or Arizona school, you want to maximize California recruiting trips.

Excuse my hooligan eccentricities... but thank you for playing.

If I was the PAC 10 Commish Tom Hansen,since I was pushing 70 I think I would consider following Mike Tranghese into retirement following the 2008-2009 school year.
Holy Smokes! Article from ESPN reporting that Commissioner Hansen is retiring next year at http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=3434062

Hansen clearly did his job. People blame him for...

...not getting the Pac-10 at least a second New Year's Day bowl berth. (As if he could force the bowls to accept schools that have shown they can't travel- that's more on the fans and the bowls than Hansen.)

...not breaking with Delaney and supporting a playoff (school presidents make that call with fervent financial support from Rose Bowl sponsors).

...not expanding to 12 and having a conference championship game (for which conference schools WOULD HAVE LOST MONEY... that's an all-around no-brainer).

...being tied to Fox Sports instead of perhaps having more ESPN presence. That one may very well be on Hansen's head. Problem is a virtual guarantee of 8 pm kickoffs Pacific time on Saturdays, because the SEC night game takes precedence.

IN OTHER WORDS, Hansen's job is to take the heat so school presidents don't have to. It's that simple. That he did well.

I'm curious to see what another commissioner would do with this... specifically Thursday night ESPN basketball slots and whatever could be done Saturdays for football. I can see where improvements can be made. I guarantee nobody can satisfy the fans, however.

Finiteman I completely agree with you. UC San Diego and UC Davis would be great additions. That is what I would do if I were commish.

I would also focus on bowls, the pac ten needs better bowl tie-ins.

As PAC 10 commisioner I would push for a mega conference. A merger with the Big 12 and the larger MW schools. I know you think I'm crazy, but the combination would probably result in a better bargaining position for tv broadcast rights. The intersectional games that could result would be fantastic. Let's face it some conference is going to do it on a smaller scale. I
stopped at 24.

Wash Ariz Nebraska
Wash St Ariz St Colorado
Oreg Texas Oklahoma
Oreg St Tex A&M Okla St
USC Tex Tech Kansas
UCLA Baylor Kans St
Calif New Mexico Iowa St
Stanford Utah Missouri

24? That is ludicrous.

However, it's not as if I haven't considered a merger like that.

The kicker... you can drop the following schools from that list:

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma State, Oregon State, Texas Tech, Utah, Washington State...

...and get the same payout. Maybe MORE, because every matchup in at least two sports would be more interesting and valuable than the diluted 24-school format. Perhaps Missouri and Texas Tech could be added back, and MAYBE they would add value, but I have my doubts.

I had the teams in columns depicting the old PAC 10 ,Big 8 and the Texas shools with some of the old WAC teams. What if the group was bigger with guaranteed big time intersectional matchups with each team playing in it's own conference? A mini CFA.

It's a wash between Oregon State and Portland State.

Portland State has the greater student body, the state Sea Grant, and much more room for growth (much less built up campus, for one thing) and is even a better academic school, But Oregon State has the Land Grant and it's much easer to get a school in to a conference than throw one out.

Portland State works as an associate in wrestling, fencing, women's crew, and even varsity hocky should the PAC 10 sponsor it, but sadly it has about as much of a chance of becoming a full member as Wayne State (Better Academics than Michigan State), Pittsburgh(Better Academics than Penn State) or Minnesota-Duluth (Better Academics than Minnesota) in the Big Ten, Nebraska-Omaha (Better Academics than Kansas State or the Oklahoma Schools) or Texas State(In an Academic and Student Body dead heat with Texas Tech) in the Big 12, Central Florida (Academic Dead Heat with Florida State and State Space Grant School) Florida Atlantic (State Sea Grant School) or ECU (State Sea Grant School) joining the ACC, or South Alabama (State Sea Grant School), Alabama-Huntsville (State Space Grant School) Louisiana-Lafayette (More Agricultrual Research done on a dollar basis than Land Grant LSU, and more research farm acreage than LSU, Southern, and Louisiana Tech combined) or Georgia State (State Public Affairs University) joining the SEC.

Portland State is also a commuter campus with so-so I-AA sports and third-tier academics. That's strikes 1-5 there for them getting into the Pac-10.

First off, no way am I going with a 16-team conference, just ask the WAC how well that worked out.

BYU doesn't want to play on Sundays? That's fine, have fun in the MWC.

The only schools I take a serious look at are Colorado/Colorado State (first choice), or Utah/Boise State (very far behind second choice). Idaho and any I-AA schools are automatically out, the only exception would be if Montana got into the MWC, expanded its stadium to at least 48,000 (not too far of a stretch), and stayed competitive in the MWC. Then they'd replace Utah if they had qualms with leaving the MWC without BYU. The two schools that would join would join the Washington/Oregon schools in the North Division, with the AZ & CA schools comprising the South.

Outside of getting the Colorado schools, the ONLY way I make a move is if the Big 10 goes to 12. There's no reason to make any moves that could water down the conference (athletically or academically) unless it becomes necessary to have a championship game.

How about Utah / Colorado ?

That might be even better than Colorado / Colorado State or Utah / BYU or Boise St.

2 flagship schools and the Slat Lake City AND Denver TV markets.

I think that would be an attractive package.

Here would be the issues:
1) Colorado is already in a BCS Conference (Big XII), would they be interested in a move ?
2) Divisional alignment. You would have 6 pairs of schools....
2 Washingtons
2 Oregons
2 Bay Area
2 SoCal
2 Arizona
2 new expansion teams.

Supposedly you'll get a lot of whining about the ability to recruit from Southern California from those teams in the division that does not include USC / UCLA.
The Big XII set-up would be to play the 5 in your division every year, and 3 of the 6 in the other division every year (that is a 4 year cycle to get all 6 teams, home and away).
This would mean one game in LA every other year (on average) for the North Division (presumably the Washington and Oregon 4, plus either the Bay Area 2 or the 2 new schools).
Would that be a deal-breaker that would keep the existing Pac-10 teams from voting for expansion ?