Conference expansion winners and losers
Numerous people have thrown together their own winner and loser lists in the aftermath of expansion-palooza 2010. Chip Brown put together his list with a decidedly Texas feel to it (No, I'm not linking it). Joe Schad tucked his tail back between his legs, returned to the four-letter, and also put together his list. After reading them and deciding they were all terrible, I'm following the trend and putting together mine.
Winners:
Texas/Oklahoma/Texas A&M: No matter what happened, Texas was going to win. Odds are, Oklahoma was also going to come home a winner too. Texas A&M, against all odds, inserted itself into the top three of the conference this week by playing a game of chicken with the SEC and Pac-10. When the dust settled, these three ended up with more money and fleeced the rest of the conference out of their buyouts. They did it the slimy way, but they're still winners.
Larry Scott and the Pac-10: So Scott swung for the fences and ended up lining one off the wall. It's better than taking a big hack and fouling one off his cup. Scott played the game as well as he could and almost won it. In the end, he didn't cave and still came out with an expanded conference. The Pac-10 now sits in a good position to negotiate its next TV deal and will still be here when the Big 12 falls flat its face.
USC: Can anyone tell me what happened to USC last week? No, you can't. The media cycle spit them out immediately and moved on to that other story.
Colorado and Nebraska: Both Colorado and Nebraska took the first train out of the Big 12 and were smarter for it. In the long run, they're both in better spots. Neither school has to deal with being in the forgotten Big 12 North division, and both schools have more competent conference commissioners (say it 10 times fast....do it) than they did a week ago. Congratulations on going from the insane asylum to the penthouse, CU and NU.
Utah: Welcome to the big leagues Utah. Even though we all knew it was coming to this, the survival of the Big 12 means Utah gets called up. They will instantly receive more TV revenues and will actually have a real shot at a BCS bid, playing in an AQ conference. Larry Scott probably didn't even get the words out of his mouth before Utah had the paperwork signed....in blood.
Washington State: Any kind of expansion and jump in revenue helps the Cougs. If the Big 12 can have a TV deal like the one that was promised (I don't buy it), then the Pac-10 should be able to clean up next year. Add a conference championship game worth between $10-15 million and we're talking about good money. The addition of the Texas schools would've brought revenue to new heights, but even the modest addition of Utah and Colorado helps WSU. Mo' money, less problems.
Losers:
The rest of the Big 12: Texas Tech and Oklahoma State got the shortest end of the stick. They not only will be second class citizens to the aforementioned big 3, but were railroaded into a deal that was bad for them. While the forgotten 5 should be happy to be in a conference, they're still losers. The revenue gap they conceded nearly ensures that they'll be in the back seat for the rest of the Big 12's life.
Dan Beebe: Go ahead, champion Beebe as a savior. He's not. Beebe was exposed for the incompetent leader he was throughout this ordeal. The fact that Beebe himself admitted it took a heck of a lot of outside influence to get the teams to stay shows how much control he has over his own conference. It's DeLoss Dodds and Texas' world, Dan, you're just living in it.
The Mountain West Conference: The MWC nearly had an automatic qualifier bid and a host of Big 12 schools fall into its lap. Instead, they lost Utah and gained Boise State. In Boise State, they added a high class academic institution with a well rounded athletic department. Wait, no they didn't. The MWC picked up a football team that's been very good lately and plays on blue turf. Wait til you see the rest of their athletic department. The MWC also loses Utah, one of its more valued members. I'm chalking this up as a net loss.
USC: You're still screwed, even if people did forget you were screwed while this was going on.

I'm still upset the bell ringer won't be a part of the Pac-10.
17 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Isn't a little early to chalk this us as an outright win for WSU?
I agree with your overall evaluation but until we know exactly how the conference will be divided I can’t be so sure. A North/South division could really hurt WSU recruiting and I’m not sure a 25% (thats the guestimate right?) increase in TV revenue would outweigh that.
I'm working on a North/South post
In short, no it won’t hurt our recruiting. The “we need to play there all the time” school of thought is incorrect in my opinion. Also, a 25% increase is low. Really low. The current deal is $43 million a year for the whole conference. The next deal should be well over $100 million if the market is any indication. It’s hard for me to explain just how bad the current TV deal is.
So we’re playing in SoCal every other year, but now we have a larger budget (some of it for recruiting). We also recruit more from NorCal, who would be in our division if it is North/South.
I strongly agree on the "we need to play there all the time" school of thought
All NW teams need to be headed there one regular basis, but northwest schools have missed out on playing LA schools quite a bit when it was an 8-game schedule for the conference, and that worked out just fine.
I don’t think they would have accepted only one California game per year, but 1 guaranteed in northern California, and one every other year in southern California will work for our coaches.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Agree 100%
No-Cal is critical, as is getting TV exposure in So-Cal. But we survived missing a tour stop in So-Cal in the past and we survived.
Agreed that 25 percent is going to be low
It’s going to be higher than that — especially if Scott follows through on his hints of making everyone equal. That is NOT the case right now in TV money distribution.
Thanks, you just made me spit beer on my keyboard
. In Boise State, they added a high class academic institution with a well rounded athletic department.
I want Canzano to stand there in that [expletive] white uniform, and with his Harvard mouth, extend Chip some [expletive] courtesy! Addicted to Quack
Yea, Because It's All About Academics Right Guys?
Says the blog of one team that has won just 8 games in 3 years and hasn’t finished above .500 since 2003.
So laughs the fan of another team that has been beaten twice by Boise St in 2 years.
Jealousy is a stinky cologne my friends.
Fellas: When it comes to athletics, it’s ALL about football. That’s the money maker. It’s what drives everything. The rest is just filler. Why do you think none of the BCS conferences were interested in a basketball powerhouse at Kansas when they were looking to expand?
Also, I’m sure the Pac 10 was thrilled at the “well-roundedness” of Colorado’s athletic department. It’s always attractive when you have a football team that has finished above .500 once in 5 years (including an AMAZING 2-10 record in 2006) and a basketball team that hasn’t been to the tourney since 2003.
by MooreWalksOnWater on Jun 17, 2010 7:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Regaring Cougfan's ignorance and unmerited feelings of elitism
Don’t worry MooreWalks, he obviously doesn’t hasn’t done his homework. Boise State is just 2 seasons removed from the NCAA tournament with a 25-win season and has gone .500ish since then, so they aren’t so bad in basketball. As far as other sports, they nationally rank high in multiple sports… from wrestling to tennis. This guy reminds me of the nerdy skinny kid who tells his 170 pound girlfriend that looks don’t matter… because WSU is NASTY looking on the football field.
Don’t kid yourselves, conference affiliation isn’t about academics even if it plays a tiny part. Its about MONEY and football. WSU brings neither to the table and is just lucky they got grandfathered in to the system. The Pullman market brings zero value and the foootball team sucks. Ask Kansas if basketball even matters because they sure thought they were screwed for a while there.
Good luck winning a game this season Cougars. I’m fully expecting to watch find out you lost at home to North Dakota Montana State. You’ll see the Broncos on TV, January 10th in Glendale. I’m out.
Thanks for the vitriol
Matt Daddy is a Duck, as you can easily see by clicking his name. Place arrogance where it is due please!
That said, your bball has played in one NCAA game, one CBI game, and one NIT game this decade.
Your baseball team… oh wait
Men’s tennis is decent
Wrestling is pretty good
Women’s gymnastics is pretty good
Track and field… eh, not impressive
Basically, Boise State is football and then two sports which most of the country doesn’t care about at all. And what a football team you have, there is no arguing that. But I would hardly call the athletic department “well rounded.”
Surprisingly, WSU brings more money to the table than BSU. In 2007 – 2008, WSU brought in $39.6 million to BSU’s $21.8 million. And if you compare WSU and BSU in revenue in general, I think you’ll conclude which one deserves to be in the Pac 10. In 2008, Boise State football, despite being a VASTLY superior team, only brought the athletic department $1 million more than WSU’s team. But the rest of WSU’s athletic department, well rounded if you will, carried the difference.
And we’re horrible in football currently, but we have had success in a traditionally great conference in the past. We’re still better than New Mexico, the current worst team in your new shiny league.
by johnnycougar on Jun 17, 2010 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
No Team "Deserves" Anything
Also, you forget that one little thing. In 2008, Boise St played in the Poinsettia Bowl for which they received $750k. WSU, played in NO bowl, but still received close to $2M in BCS money. Did the 2-11 WSU team “deserve” close to $2M for winning 2 games? Did Boise St “deserve” $750K for going undefeated?
I want you to know that I’m not bashing your program, I’m just trying to show you that “deserving” has nothing to do with CFB. The system sucks and punishes the little guy, and trust me, having a “well rounded” athletic program has NOTHING to do with you being in the Pac 10 and Boise not. It was a MUCH different world when you joined the Pac Coast Conf in 1915.
Who the Pac 10 chose to invite has everything to do with expanding into the largest TV market. I think I already showed that with Colorado and their “well rounded” athletics.
by MooreWalksOnWater on Jun 18, 2010 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Winners:
Pac10 SBN Blogs for adding 2 new awesome blogs to the fun. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I concur.
Both Block U and The Ralphie Report are really good reads. I mean, they’re totally already better than UW Dawg Pound.
by Kyle Rancourt on Jun 17, 2010 3:43 AM PDT up reply actions
In Boise State, they added a high class academic institution with a well rounded athletic department. Wait, no they didn’t. The MWC picked up a football team that’s been very good lately and plays on blue turf. Wait til you see the rest of their athletic department
They also picked up a Top 5 National Title Contender for the 2010 season. But yeah you’re right, there’s nothing to see here…?
Boise State - The best in all the land (The "land" being Idaho, and large parts of California, Oregon, and Nevada.) Now also including Fort Worth, TX and coming soon this fall, Washington D.C.!
BSU athletics are very well rounded actually.
Hence them winning the Commissioners Cup and numerous other titles over the decades. Just because football is up and basketball is down doesn’t mean the whole places stinks. What kind of logic is that?
And earning a bachelors at BSU is the same as earning one anywhere else, its just that BSU doesn’t have as many master or doctoral programs as BCS universities, but every year they’re adding more. Not to mention BSU is in the state capital, growth is inevitable.
Outstanding achievements considering how young the university is.
"Gandhi didn't take a knee, Martin Luther King didn't take a knee, Thomas Edison didn't take a knee, and I sure as hell am not going to take a knee." - Dan Hawkins

by 

















