Fanblogs.com - Latest Comments in PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Angry_tuba_chick — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:15:01 -0000

Two divisions: California, and The Great Unwashed....

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Angry_tuba_chick — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:05:17 -0000

Uh... typical UC attitude. The UCs ARE state schools, they are not private. And what about Oregon STATE and Washington STATE?

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Zac — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:37:23 -0000

As I've already said, what ever the PAC-10 does or does not do in this regard will be done or not done as it best suits the PAC-10's financial coffers.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Ben Prather — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:12:21 -0000

The PAC 10 is in no hurry to expand.

The BIG 10 is seriously considering adding a 12th team and a championship game. This change, or another significant performace by another Utah school, could change the college football landscape considerably, especially if they keep beating PAC 10 schools.

The Rose Bowl cartel should consider the frustration expressed by the SEC. The SEC, Big 12 and ACC, combined, are a considerable force in college football. The BCS arrangement is predicated on the whims of these conferences, and the three BCS bowls they represent, as well. This is why a plus one format is inevitable.

I admit an expansion is not a near prospect. My intent was to clairify who the ligitimate teams to consider are.

Go MWC!

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Ben Prather — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:54:56 -0000

1) This is why I created the scheduling to avoid the division structure. The northern schools will not agree to an expansion that robs them of the opportunity to play in southern California. In a division structure they would play at USC or UCLA 2/3 of the time. With the schedule I described they would be guaranteed to play 1/2 the time, with the expectation to play an additional 1/4 of the time, depending on performance. 3/4 of the time is still less than all the time.

4) BYU is a research institution, but is cassified as high, not very high.

5) They are more leary of BYU's insistance against participating in sports on Sunday.

2, 3, 6) Yes

If BYU lives up to their hype this year, things could change quickly.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Dave — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:29:08 -0000

Hawaii will never happen. The travel is brutal can you imagine a Ath Director having to send the Women's Crew Team to Hawaii? Cost/travel time will not allow it.

BYU ain't gonna happen. USC does not want to share a conf with Mormons. They wouldn't come out and say so but that is the deal.

I don't know why if the Pac-10 became 12 the Southern Schools would agree to a playoff. Essentially winning the Northern Div. would be a cake walk compared to the Southern division. I mean it would have been great for Oregon State the last 2 years, but would Cal be willing to either be in the Southern Division with USC or miss out on that California exposure by playing up North all Fall??

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

DUCKe — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:20:51 -0000

The PAC10 conference has no interest in expansion, inclusion, nor aiding and abetting the SEC/Big 12/ACC. WAC/Mt. West (and more recently) SEC/Big12/ACC conference members start most of these threads. The Pac 8 has long since admitted the only two viable candidates. The BCS was little more than an SEC/Big 12/ACC attempt to rival the PAC 10/Big10's Rose Bowl arrangement. The BCS arrangement remains predicated upon the whims of the PAC10/Big 10 administrators. WAC/Mt. West/SEC/ Big 12/ACC concerns are probably not at the top of their list of priorities.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

rwham17251 — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:52:11 -0000

From what I understand as being in the way of expansion is:

1) Adding two more teams would result in two divisions, and the four northwest schools, plus possibly Stanford and/or Cal would be placed in the northern division. The apprehension by these schools of this is being cut off from annual trips to the fertile recruiting grounds of Southern California.

2) The two California schools are UC schools and they would not want a Cal State school to be added to the Pac-10 as they, by their classification as state schools, are not in the same academic class.

3) The television market. To be added, the school would essentially have to bring 1/10 of the current Pac-10 viewers with them, so that their addition enhances the average number of viewers per school. From what I understand, this pretty much eliminates all the schools except BYU, Colorado, and Texas.

4) The insistence upon only having research institutions in the conference. From what I understand, BYU is not a research institution.

5) I've read that the only two private schools in the conference are leary of adding another private schools with significant religious ties.

6) The schools like that there is a true round robin.

I think it's fun to think about expansion, but I would be surprised if it ever happened.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Zac — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 23:49:16 -0000

I don't think anyone is saying they have to. There has been speculation of it in the past, and Ben has taken that a little further is all. Ultimately, the PAC-10 will do that which suits the PAC-10 best. If that means expansion, it's fun to consider how that may occur.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

scaryklown — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:06:28 -0000

Did I miss the pre-pre-post explaining why the Pac -10 NEEDS to expand? Other than the mention of the money that could be made with a conference championship game, what is the reasoning? Pac-10 football teams play every other team in the conference over the course of the regular season, so I don't get the "sword of Damocles" at work here. No, just because other conferences wanted the cash cow in a ccg, the Pac-10 doesn't automatically have to follow suit.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Zac — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:30:49 -0000

Ben, there's no way to say this without sounding like I'm ki$$ing your a$$, but I liked your series of articles on PAC-10 expansion. Thanks!!!

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Anonymous 4 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:39:51 -0000

You are right. Stanford just objected to having Texas in the Pac-10. I made the assumption that they had voted. None of the information I have seen points to an actual vote taking place. Sorry for the misinformation.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Anonymous 4 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:42:16 -0000

You are correct. The only information that I have seen is that Stanford objected. I made the assumption that a vote did take place. I am sorry for the misinformation.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

spartanthunder — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:48:10 -0000

San Jose State would be a good fit simply because of their large TV media coverage, and large student enrollment (35,000).

More discussions here... http://mbd.scout.com/mb.asp...

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Ben Prather — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:24:37 -0000

Ok, will do

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

aVoiceInSC — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:22:14 -0000

Not ranking in the Top 130 makes a school "a great academic institution"?

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

aVoiceInSC — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:19:58 -0000

I will make the "unnamed" become the "named". LSU, Ole Miss, and Miss. State.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

aVoiceInSC — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:13:18 -0000

This comment went in the wrong place. Please disregard.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Ben Prather — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:21:09 -0000

Idaho is at least on the right side of the Rockies. Idaho also was included as a rival for Boise State. Idaho is also in the bowl subdivision. Idaho plays 2 PAC 10 teams every year. This is four reasons Idaho was included over Montana.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Ben Prather — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:18:00 -0000

No one is going to argue against Fresno State athletics.

Academically they might be on par with some of the academically challenged SEC teams (NOT ALL SEC TEAMS, IM JUST SAYING THERE ARE A FEW UNNAMED SCHOOLS THAT NEED SOME IMPROVING ACADEMICALLY). They are no PAC 10, BIG 12, BIG EAST, ACC or BIG 10 team.

Fresno State has the profile of a non BCS team that can give anyone a run for the money on any given saturday. Athletically they have more to offer than Hawaii.

These comments need spell check.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Bobak — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:06:57 -0000

"Historic connections" for Idaho? In that case you forgot Montana. Both will never happen.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

Bevo_Boiler — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:56:31 -0000

I hate TE's vocabulary. It always makes me feel like a retard. I'm better at the ACT, not the SAT.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

DogFan — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:01:05 -0000

While I'm not argueing that Fresno St is a great academic institution, they are improving drastically within the last 7-8 years. I believe Fresno St.'s pres got the hint that he needed to improve things badly and started a major upgrade to the academics. They are almost finished with a new library which will be the largest on the west coast (from what I read), finally got state approval to offer doctoral programs (although they are still limited to a few and the UC's keep trying to block the CSUs from offering doctoral programs on their own), building upgrades and they boast one of the premier ag programs in the country.
On the athletic side they have been improving in many areas and they are not accepting prop 48 students or partial qualifiers as of 2003, and doing fairly well with their APR scores as well. The only sport that is still lagging is basketball and that may take another 5 years to correct because that program was really screwed by Tark and Lopes. Now of course it is easier to get into Fresno St but like I said they are improving drastically. It is a much different campus then it was 10 years ago.
Sorry for the rant, I don't mean to say that Fresno deserves to be in the PAC because academically they don't, but I believe they are becoming a more respectable school. Personally if the PAC did expand I would have to say the Utah/Hawaii makes a lot of sense if the PAC doesn't mind the travel to the islands.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

fan4fan — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:36:59 -0000

Sir Fart... You need to quote me correctly. I said that Utah and BYU are more likely candidates than Texas to join the PAC 10 (I did not say that Utah and BYU were clearly ahead of other schools academically). After that I said that the Texas fan that argued that Utah was not strong enough to get into the PAC 10 because of weak academics was simple ignorant of how good of a school Utah is.

Congrats on the rankings, but they are really nothing to do with my post.

Re: PAC 10 Expansion: Introduction

SirFartsALot — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:37:19 -0000

"Utah and BYU are clearly ahead of any other schools including Texas...Therefore, anyone arguing that academics is the reason not include BYU or Utah is simply ignorant. "

Last I checked, Texas was a for more impressive academic school than either of these, unless ALL of the college ranking guides are just ignorant.