Would be doing away with the 9 and 18 game schedules for football and basketball respectively. Those extra games really cause us to beat each other up and hurt our postseason chances.

As long as it is done with the right values in mind (no Boise St.). Adding two teams, while on the verge off negotiating a new TV contract could do wonders for the Pac-10. We can debate the teams worthy of expansion like Utah, BYU, Colorado, Texas, TCU, ect. But the point is, if we can get two teams in the pac-10 that have good football attendance, lots of potential TV revenue, good overall athletic standing, and good academic standing, I think the conference would be better off in the long hall.

I haven’t been on this earth very long, but I imagine this to be similar as to when the Arizona schools were added to the ‘Pac-8’. While at the time these schools probably were not as good as the 8 schools in the conference, they eventually grew to be a fundamental part of the Pac-10 contributing to the athletics in a variety of ways, and expanding the overall revenue of the conference. If expansion is looked at by inteligent people, who know what to look for, I have no doubt that it will help the Pac-12(?) in the long run.

… Fairbanks is an awesome school. 10k students – 60% of whom are female.

Seriously – I’m kind of torn on the idea of expansion. I prefer the classic bowl system pre-BCS. However, the BCS has fundamentally changed the game. So, count me as one who is open to expansion.

Oh, and let’s not get our hopes up about a playoff. There is an economic system in place that is very well entrenched and resistant to change. Short of government penalization, I can’t see anything on the horizon that could come close to disrupting that system. Without an impetus, there will be no reform.

but I know it may happen. I would hate to lose the annual home and homes in basketball most of all and as much as it hurts in the current system, I love the round robin football schedule as well. Having 12 teams does nothing more than add a conference championship game which most likely would be in LA every year and be very lightly attended unless USC or UCLA is playing.

As for teams, I would hope they would keep with the current make up of the conference, having two teams in the same state with a natural rivalry. That is what makes the Pac-10 unique. I see it as mainly 3 options to fit this with two being way more likely than the 3rd. This would be Colorado/CSU, Utah/BYU, or a big maybe for UNLV/Nevada.

 I think the Nevada schools wouldn’t really add to the TV footprint much and may not quite fit the academic standards, but it would be nice to add Las Vegas to the travel plans. Utah and BYU are often mentioned and we all know the issues with BYU. The biggest advantage here would be cutting the head off of the Mountain West before it is granted BCS status, which could really hurt the Pac-10. Now you don’t have 2 additional schools to recruit against on a level playing field, you have 10-12. I really think the most likely or desirable scenario is Colorado and CSU. They fit everything the Pac-10 is looking for. CSU has a smaller stadium and all that, but being in the Pac-10 would increase their exposure and probably help them improve all of their athletics. If there was a time to get Colorado to jump from the Big 12, it would be in the domino affect of the Big 11 expansion, especially if they rob Missouri or possibly others.

I’m in favor if it is the best (or only!) way to get a better TV contract and / or more national exposure. I have heard the arguments that it would help us get a 2nd team into the BCS more often but I’m not sure if I agree. If all the other conferences end up with 12 and having conference championships, do we want to be the only one that doesn’t? I like having everyone play each other once but it’s not something I’m immovable about.

This adds Denver and Salt Lake City, the largest 2 western markest the PAC 10 is not already in.

A major issue is scheduling and idvision alignments. None of the existing schools are going to want to be in a division without the California schools. They can’t all be in the same division.

I have actually been playing with the issue of scheduling with this expansion. Here are some key ideas of my design:

• Break the teams into three groups of four:
  **California: Califonria, Stanford, UCLA, USC
  • North: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
  • South: Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
• All teams from each group play every year, continuing current home and away series
• The California schools alternate between the Northern and Southern Division on a four year schedule, one home and away with each team in each four years
• The Northern and Southern schools also play eachother on a similar four year pattern.

This accounts for seven game for each team each year, with teams playing each team in their group every year and teams from other groups two out of four years. Adding an 8th game would up the latter number to five out of eight years.

Balancing the home and away games for each team each season and with each team over a cycle is tricky and would take sixteen years to complete one cycle. This involves breaking the four year home and away cycle (by alternating home and away for the meetings of pairs of teams). I am hoping to find such a pattern that:

• Allows all teams to visit and host a California School each year
• Staggers the team changes from the Northern Division to the Southern Division
• Guarantees all series in consecutive years alternate home and away

I’m a Big Ten guy that’s written a lot about that conference’s expansion plans, but I delved into the Pac-10 situation a bit in this post a couple of weeks:

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/big-ten-expansion-follow-up-post-3-more-on-the-financial-gap-between-the-big-ten-and-big-12-notre-dames-independence-in-question-east-coast-family-and-fallout-in-other-conferences/

Colorado and Utah are really the only somewhat viable options for the Pac-10, but the unanimous vote requirement for expansion is going to be an extremely tough hurdle. Remember that Texas couldn’t get a unanimous vote from the Pac-10 or else the Longhorns would be there now, Penn State didn’t get a unanimous vote from all of the Big Ten members, and Miami didn’t get a unanimous vote from all of the ACC members. Those are all massive national name brand power schools with huge markets and fan bases – effectively all no-brainers – yet they couldn’t get voted in unanimously. So, take that into account when considering what it would take to get the Pac-10 to add a member just from a voting perspective.

That being said, the Pac-10 is probably the most vulnerable of any conference if the MWC gets a BCS auto-bid or the BCS system ever implodes – the Big Ten and SEC will continue to rake in dollars no matter what and only the Big 12 has any direct competition with the MWC in its home region. Leading the charge from the federal government’s perspective happens to be Senator Orrin Hatch from the State of Utah. How quickly would Sen. Hatch all of the sudden STFU about the BCS system if the University of Utah became a Pac-10 school?

The Pac-10 adding Colorado and Utah probably doesn’t make sense in terms of revenue assuming that we continue with today’s BCS system (or some close variation of it like a plus-one). However, maintaining that BCS system itself (or at least squashing any hopes of the MWC to become a BCS conference) in the long-term would likely be extremely important to the Pac-10. If adding Utah happens to preserve today’s system, then that alleviates a lot of long-term fears for the Pac-10.

What about Rice? I understand they suck in football currently, but they’re in a Top 10 media market in Houston, have great academics, and have a great baseball team. It’s probably a stretch, because they’d be the team that geographically didn’t really fit, but by all other accounts, it seems to be a fit.

I’m just throwin’ names out. Not saying Rice should definitely be included in any potential Pac 10 expansion.

In 2 divisions without any protected cross-division rivals, each school would play all of the other schools in the other division 4 years on/2 years off.

You could also have 2 protected cross-division rivals for each school, where those protected rivals play annually and the rest of the cross-division schools play 2 years on/2 years off. This would work best if you put USC/UCLA in one division and Cal/Stanford in the other so that will allow all 4 of those schools to continue to play each other annually (which might very well be a condition those schools will insist upon before agreeing to any type of expansion).

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/342268-rumor-utah-and-colorado-to-the-pac-12

Mentions many of the things we have all stated here.

Football should go to 12 and basketball to 14 with St. Maries and Gonzaga.

Finally someone else is sick of being worse in most sports than other confrences.

SHAKE THINGS UP BABY

I’m for expansion, year by year the Pacten is slipping in standing nationally and contributing to this is the lack of a conference championship game in DEC to help boost the two best teams.
I would love to get BYU/UTAH or CU/CSU into the conference. I doubt they will come along. I think we in the pacten have too high opinion of the league. Honestly, of the bigger west of the Mississppi programs, I think we are more likely to get say UNLV/Nevada or BoiseSU/UNLV to want to play/risk and improve their national position. I think that is why Walnut Creek hasn’t pushed this hard in the past, it is embarrassing when the teams we want don’t want out the cush/comfrotable conference they are in, thereby giving us only second tier options and the commissioners know this.

A little far fetched, and never going to happen, but…
Split up the Big East and Big 12, other conferences keep current members, and add some of the better non-BCS schools. Might look like this:
     Pac- Colorado, Utah, BYU, Hawaii, TTech, Texas, Boise St, Nebraska
     SEC-S Fla, SMU, TCU, A&M, OK, OKSt
     ACC-UConn, Rutgers, Syracuse, WV, Louisville, Pitt
     Big Tweleven-Iowa St, Mizzou, Notre Dame, Cincinatti, Kansas, K State, Baylor

18 team superconferences, two divisions of 9. Champions of each division play in conference championship. Four conference winners play in 4 team playoff to determine a true national champion. Problem solved.