Right on, Bob. I agree with pretty much everything you said. I don't see a need to expand nor the draw of BYU / Utah in this particular case.

They do need to rotate the men's bball conference tournament though.

The Pac-10 is perfect. You play everyone in football once rotating home/away each year and you play everyone in basketball twice, one home and one away.

Look at Big East basketball where teams may only get to play a bottom feeder once but may end up playing Connecticut twice.

Good stuff Bob!

Bob, thanks for your fantastic commentary. I agree with every point you made.

I've never understood the idea of expanding to 12 teams. In my honest opinion, the Pac 10 is the first BCS conference to successfully put together a conference that works. Why fix something that seems pretty ideal?

Umm, no thanks. The Pac 10 works great as is...

And BYU and Utah? Umm, that's ok, thanks anyway.

Disagree Bob - Harmon makes a valid point concerning Wassu and OSU. BYU and Utah are right in the heart of the Salt Lake Valley. They are maybe 25 miles apart. Of the 2.5 million people in that state, 90% of them live in that SLC Valley. The resources of BYU and Utah FAR exceed that of OSU and Wassu. To pick up another 2 million plus TV market would be great for the entire conference. Both schools run great - clean programs and would be a classy fit for the Pac-10. What little the Pac-10 would share with them would be far out-weighed by the resources they offer. And why does the Championship HAVE to be played in Los Angeles to be successful? Isn't the Big-12 game played in like Oklahoma City or something? Plus - this conference needs some revitalization.

Is there still really that much draw to UCLA? The Bruins have been overrated but not good for long enough. that seems like a pretty big stretch to justify not sharing the money.

Just be honest about it, anyone arguing that it isn't about the money is lying to themselves. Everything from expansion to a playoff will be shot down by the Pac10 as long as the money train stops by. Just don't tell me it's for UCLA because there is no way I'm making a special trip to watch a mediocre UCLA program in the cold rain.

are you still bitter about '84?

I don't think it should be BYU and Utah, I was thinking Boise State and either Fresno State, BYU or Hawaii. All those teams have been competitors and in BCS situations the last few years. I think each of the major conferences should have 12 teams, with Conference championships games and those winners plus a few wildcard teams could make for great play off football.

How the hell can Oregon State be considered one of the two worst programs in the Pac-10? Two National Championships in baseball aren't enough? Finishing 3rd the last two seasons in football isn't enough? Being a Top 10 gymnastics team isn't enough? Having a National Champion swimmer isn't enough? I could go on.

Wazzu...yes. Oregon State....no.

If the money numbers come up solid, greed wins!

seatown matt-

You're right, 12 team conferences would be great for a playoff and college football, but as Bob points out very well, it's all about money and greed. If they (whoever is making these decisions) were worried about what was best for football then there would already be a playoff instead of the BcS system .

BSU has had football success lately, but their other programs are lacking. At least with Utah and BYU you have basketball programs that are big draws as well as other programs that are very successful.

One factor against expansion, and one reason for the round-robin schedule, is that every team in the Pac-10 recruits heavily in SoCal. The other reason for the round-robin schedule is that it creates additional attractive games for the ESPN contract.

On the other hand, not skipping in-conference opponents limits the number of high-win teams (10+ wins) in the conference, reducing the chances of the Pac-10 getting two schools into BCS bowls.

I agree 100% Bob. The only benefit from expansion is entering a new television market. While SLC is above average, it isn't worth breaking traditions.

I hope I never see the Pac-12, I couldn't imagine a more perfect scheduling system than what we have in place now.

Why should it split its financial pie? You act like you are having to split the "financial pie" with 20 teams. It's only 2 teams. And consider this, by adding BYU and Utah that will add another game to the schedule... call it a conference championship game. That my friend equals MORE money. And having a conference championship also increases the Pac10's odds of adding a 2nd team into the BCS picture. Toss the arrogance to the side for a bit and actually look at the bigger picture rather than your pie chart.

It is called the PAC-10 for a reason - because it is the western most states and all but Arizona are on the Pacific. Forgetting the money, I like it the way it is now. Each team plays every other team and you have a true champion. To have a playoff, the league and FSN would insist the games are in the LA area (think Pac-10 men's basketball tournament) and that is not fair to 8 of the schools. I still believe the basketball tournament should rotate between the 5 states in the conference. In this case of expansion, bigger is not better either academically or athletically.

I'm on the fence with this one, I like the round robin schedule but a conference championship game has its appeal as well.

Bob, UCLA is NOT a draw any longer, nobody cares about them (the only reason that game has any meaning this year is because of Neuweasel returning to Seattle). USC, yeah, I like seeing them however, if we didn't play them during the regular season there's a good chance we would see them in a conference championship game. The key for me is which teams would be added to the conference?? Utah and BYU, then no, keep things as they are, if it's Boise St. and Fresno then I might be a little more interested. Here's how it would look:

North division: UW, WSU, Boise St, Oregon, Oregon St and Cal

South division: Stanford, USC, UCLA, Fresno St, Ariz, Ariz St.

you would always play the other five in your division and rotate each year playing three teams in the other division (there, I just solved the scheduling part).

When evaluating the worst programs in the Pac-10 the biggest factor should be attendance and program size. WSU and the BEAVS don't have that many fans to draw from, and are in really small TV markets. BYU would be a good addition, Utah - no. probably Fresno State or even San Jose State would be a better choice. I would say that Arizona is on the bubble as well.
-
If TW doesn't start winning he 'll have UW there soon as well.

Add two more WSU quality teams? No one cares about BYU and Utah. They need to face reality and realize they aren't and won't be BCS schools.

"He says both BYU and Utah would be better than Washington State or Oregon State. That's debateble by any measure, I think."

I think? Thats the most unsure declarative statement I've ever heard. And for good reason. The conference would definately benefit from expansion into SLC especially given the fact that we are saddled with a couple of schools that have virtually contributed nothing over the span of their conference affiliation.

On WSU and OSU --- Both are much better fits for the conference academically, whatever you think of their athletic programs, which is a big deal to the presidents/chancellors. Also, you don't just throw out decades of tradition and loyalty to add a school that might draw a little better. Replacing those schools isn't going to happen.

And I must have missed the memo that these other schools have some inaleniable right to be considered for expansion by the Pac-10. I play guitar and I'd love to be in the Rolling Stones. And I'll pay my own expenses. Does that mean they have to consider me? I don't see where the Pac-10 has any responsibility to consider expanding.

And to UW Alum, with all due respect, how is that better than what we have now? I guess that's my biggest question of all of this --- what's anybody gain out of all of that? Maybe you get into another TV market (thought Fresno State wouldn't really help with that and Boise State wouldn't add much there, either). But is that really worth it? (Also, neither of those schools really fits with the Pac-10's academic mission).

One of the main reasons that Boise State, Fresno State, Utah or BYU will NEVER be in the Pac-10 is that they are not as academically sound as the rest of the group. The Conference prides itself on being the top BCS conference academically and all of those schools would tarnish that reputation. Even WSU and ASU, known to be the weakest schools academically in the conference, have higher rankings than BSU, FSU, Utah or BYU.

Your "market size" automatically make you the two worst teams in a conference! Brilliant.

Colorado a no-brainer. What have they done, besides be a large market?

The only truth is that the presidents and the chancellors call the shots, not the the Commish and thank god not the AD's.

The PAC-10 is the perfect model.

what does academics have to do with anything? Is sounds like just another bullcrap excuse to try and cover the real reason: money, and lots of it.

I'm a huge Pac 10 fan, but some of these excuses are bogus. Tradition is the only non-money excuse I've heard that is reasonable.

Adding Boise St would be stupid. fresno isn't much better. As much as I hate BYU, they would be a good fit in the conference. They draw over 60000 in a game against Utah St. and their other sports are solid.

Matt in Dallas, the article already pointed out that the hypothetical championship game likely wouldn't make enough more money to make up for splitting the pie 12 ways instead of 10. Look at the ACC, for instance, their championship game has NOT been a financial success.

Now, to your second point, if having a conf championship game really did increase the odds of getting a 2nd BCS team in, that would be a plus. But it's not clear to me why you think that is so. In any case it would have to be weighed very carefully (at least from the point of view of the PNW schools) against any change that would have us no longer playing down in SoCal every year. We need the exposure down there because that's a recruiting ground for all of us.

Palto, as the Beav pointed out it's pretty tough to argue that OSU "contributes nothing" at this moment in history, considering over the last 3 years they are the third best football program in the league and have won 2 national championships in baseball. I believe they also have more Heisman trophy winners (one) than UW, Oregon and Cal combined.

I'm not even gonna touch this idea that UCLA is some has-been school that "nobody cares about" so therefore we should bring in some schools from the WAC. That is beyond silly.

lance, it sounds like your only criterion for conf membership is attendance/ fan base, since you want BYU and their 60K fans but don't want Boise or Fresno. Guess what, the Pac-10 has other criteria and it is entirely their right to have them.

"Replacing those schools isn't going to happen."

I disagree. I think it is inevitable that WSU will no longer be part of this conference in the future.

Eugene and Corvallis are pretty close to one another. Pulman is nowwhere. How much extra does each school have to spend in time and money getting there?

All 6 southern schools would like to see this happen. Its just a matter of when.

As a Pac-10 parent I would prefer my daugher to be back home studying or preparing for competition than on a bus from Spokan to Pullman

Bob,

The fatal falw in your analogy as you well know is that Utah is a superior academic and athletic institution than WSU. Conversely, you can't hang with Keith Richards? Can you?

You say that WSU is the worst team in the confrence but they beat the huskies last year... so what does that make UW? Please clarify Bob...

"You say that WSU is the worst team in the confrence but they beat the huskies last year... so what does that make UW? Please clarify Bob..."

64-30 alltime and a number 22 ramking in the director's cup.

The Apple Cup by the way is the least competitive of the 5 Pac-10 rivalries.

Even I know that

Wow, some actual insight from Bob. This is the best post I have ever read on this blog. Great job, Bob, I agree with you about 90% on this one. Fans would still attend the championship game if the Pac expanded.

Harmon is reacting to an article in Fox Sports which agrees with you that Colorado and Texas would make the most money, but would also be harder to them pull away from the Big XII.

I think it is presumptive to conclude that adding BYU and Utah would mean a net loss in revenue for the schools.

Also, the divisions proposed by Fox Sports are based on rivals, not geography ... so every schools still gets to recruit and trip to LA:

University Division:
UW, UO, Cal, UCLA, UA, UU

State Division:
WSU, OSU, Stanford, USC, ASU, BYU

WSU will never be kicked out of the Pac-10 nor should they be. For one thing UW will not let it happen and the CA schools will always want UW in their conference. This exact chain of events has happened once already when one of the predecessor leagues to the Pac-10 broke up and re-formed.

I could not agree more. The only advantage I can see of adding two teams to the conference is that we'd get to call it the 12-PAC. ;)

So one could say WSU is forever indebted to UW?

That is a good lesson for our younger cougs who have yet to learn their standing in the grand scheme of things.

Is that why they named their stadium after a husky?

I think UWisGod Field is what it should be called.

Beaver Nation -
I don't think it was the intent of anyone to disrespect OSU or Wassu. What I was merely pointing out is that neither one of those schools have the TV market of BYU and Utah. They have a 2 million viewer market within a 50 mile radius. That is just not the case for OSU, Wassu or Oregon for that matter. Both OSU and Wassu have brought pride and respect to the Pac-10 over the years, their programs are necessary for the Pac-10. I just feel that adding BYU and Utah is the right thing to do. Remember that the Denver Metropolitan area is only 500 miles from BYU and Utah as well as Boise and Las Vegas being even closer. With the Mormon (I'm Mormon so no LDS jokes guys!!!) population making up most of the residents our Pac-10 market would stretch even further than one might think.

PS

(pat, pat)

We need Reality Check and Formerly Guest to weigh in on this issue. Troy Must Be Destroyed (ducks demolished)

It's funny that people are banging on UCLA. It has more college championships than any other program. It's football program may not have an impressive resume as of late, but they typically are able to recruit some of the best talent in so cal. Only a moron would not recognize that it's not just a matter of time before that becomes a dangerous program again.

Whatever, do not split the conference. Do not have a conference championship game. Conference championship games are meaningless, primarily because they dilute, and are diluted by, any regular season meeting of the participating teams.

In addition to being meaningless, Conference Championships add the risk of injury. Also, with the bowl games most people cannot afford to go to two games, so they choose the bowl games.

Conference Championships bring nothing to the table.

I hope we go Rose Bowl this year (not likely by any means) and if we don't I want to Vegas Bowl. Then you get a two fer, as far as parties, gambling, etc.

Go Dawgs!

Would someone care to explain to me why Seattle isn't also considered part of WSU's market share? Last time I checked, over half of the WSU students and alumni are from the Seattle area. And WSU has played one football game in Quest Field every year since 2002. By sheer numbers alone, they should have almost as much pull in Seattle as UW.

Oh, and while Clarence D. Martin was, indeed, a Husky graduate, his son Dan was the one who donated the money in honor of his father. Or maybe he was just trying to atone for his father's mistakes...

" Last time I checked, over half of the WSU students and alumni are from the Seattle area. And WSU has played one football game in Quest Field every year since 2002. By sheer numbers alone, they should have almost as much pull in Seattle as UW."

from and in that market share are two totally different things.. and actually LOOK at the numbers and do some research before making statements like this. Without looking at the numbers myself (cause I don't need to to shoot down this rediculus comment) half your alumni and students have seattle ties....

ALL OF OUR ALUMNI & STUDENTS HAVE SEATTLE TIES. As well as the whole student body in this market, and most of our alumni stay here, because it is a viable sustainable market, and city... unlike pullman.

So, all UW vs. 1/2 of pullman makes you have "almost as much pull in seattle as UW" are you effin kidding me... pullman have almost as much pull as UW in SEATTLE?!?!?!?!?!?!

Gabe,

I have little to add.

I don't see the benefit of expansion, but haven't thought about it much.

I prefer a football schedule where we play everyone in the league, which is what we have now.

I think the conference championship games are lame for the most part.

It seems the ACC game has been a major financial mistake.

The SEC and the Big-12 game seem successful. But the SEC gets like 60,000 people or something to their spring games. We get maybe 8,000, and I can't imagine USC gets more than 15,000 or 20,000.

That may signify that the fans in our conference just don't have the passion - or the finances - to go to a conference championship game in an exotic/expensive (yet smog-infested) locale, just a few weeks before another trip to an exotic/expensive locale for a bowl game.

If by the grace of God our team made a bowl this year, there is no way I could afford to go. And certainly not a conference championship game. But I probably spend more of my disposable income on things other than college football and NASCAR, compared to the average SEC or BIG-12 fan. There is no guarantee that the average Pac-10 fan would bow out of travelling to conference championship games, but I suspect they would.

I will say this, although it is off topic.

I grew-up loving the traditional PAc-10/Big-10 mathcup in the rose bowl, and I love that stadium in January. (Frankly, it is the only time of year I can breath in Pasadena).

Anyway, it kills me we don't have a 4 or 8 team play-off for our BCS. Life would be better if we cut the bowls to 10 games. They could be done by the last week in December.

The AP selects the top 8 teams. They have a weekly playoff and are done by the 3rd week in January.

Under the current system, the last bowls are not done until the 2nd week in January anyway.

We can postpone the start of spring practice by 1 month, to make sure the student-atheletes still have enough time off.

The AP can seed teams and determine host sites and match-ups based on that, or it can be random draw.

I suspect I am preaching to the choir, and the real roadblock are financial motivations.

But comapred to this issue, I don't think I care much at all about conference expansion.

When looking at the size of TV market, you do have to factor Seattle into the WSU base, as the majority of grads live on the West side. Throw in Spokane, Lewiston and Tri-cities and you have a pretty good size. Now, the erroneous claim that WSU is weak academically is laughable. Engineering, vet and agriculture, communications, hotel management, pharmacology, etc. are outstanding programs at WSU. And remember, all the doctors and lawyers in the world won’t help you if you have nothing to eat! Go Cougs!

BCS has been proven to be broken.
if PAC10 gets 2 more (Boise State, Fresno State?)...and some more little conferences get bigger...playoff more likely...using the bowls that already exist and conference title games to pair down.

C'mon

Seattleites with wsu connections are largely considered 2nd rate citizens.

To factor Seattle into WSU base is pathetic and mounting evidence of WSU's hanger-on status. This is the agenda that the Seattle Times has pushing to no avail. WSU has no more claim to Seattle than Western Central, Eastern Gonzaga, Saint Martin, Evergreen, Whitworth etc.

Isn't Eugene closer to Seattle than Pullman?

The Pac-10 has Seattle covered with UW, Don't sleeps on Seattle U either.

pattapit: Do all UW alumni live in Seattle? Of course not. Do a majority of UW alumni live there? Probably a safe assumption, though you were too lazy verify this. But do UW alumni make up the majority of Seattle? Not a chance.

I do not deny that there are more UW alumni in Seattle than WSU alumni; but it doesn't change the fact that a majority of WSU alumni live and work in Seattle. This gives WSU significant pull on that side of the state, though not as much as UW (as I specifically stated in my previous post). Therefore, since there are significant alumni bases for both schools in the city, you should count them as the market for both schools. It's no different than counting San Fransisco for both Cal and Stanford, or Los Angeles for both USC and UCLA, or Portland for both Oregon and Oregon State, or Phoenix for both Arizona and Arizona State.

Oh, and maybe you should try reading the statement next time before you automatically call it "rediculus."

If the big 11 expands to 12 teams, it is likely the pac10 will follow and if the pac10 is "forced" into such a scenario I wouldn't mind seeing utah and byu in the pac10.

BSU, Fresno State, Hawaii or SDSU are not at the level of pac10 schools--both academically or athletically. both utah and byu have well rounded athletic departments and like someone said earlier, both run clean programs.

If the presidents ever vote to expand, utah and byu have my vote.

Scheduling problems are not solved.

The problem with splitting up the conference is the LA market, but for historical reasons as much as recruiting/prestige/whatever reasons.

Example: Cal's longest continuous rivalry is NOT with Stanford. It is with USC - played every year since 1926. Cal will never go along with a plan that does not have it playing USC every year, nor (for more obvious reasons) one that does not have it playing UCLA every year.

Stanford is similar - it is USC's oldest rival (first played in 1905) and there is a natural rivalry with the two big in-state private universities.

So if you start splitting up into a division with all California schools in one division, then you get into core vs non-core issues. If you make arbitrary "Cal isn't in the same division as USC but plays USC every year" rules then you get into some of the messes of the pre-round-robin scheduling years.

I know I'm biased as a BYU fan but I think people would be surprised how beneficial it would be if the PAC 10 expanded to include BYU and Utah. all of the existing television would be bolstered by large Mormon populations in the west (although its unclear whether that would significant, its not like Mormons in the west don't watch college football because their favorite teams aren't in the conference). What I think should happen is that the MWC should expand and become a BCS conference. They should add Boise State, Fresno State, and Houston or SMU. With those additions the MWC would be as strong top to bottom as the ACC and Big East. However once they got some time of recognition in the BCS system they should boot its worst program and get Colorado to defect from the Big12!! Now that would make a great conference!! Oh man I'm salivating just thinking about it!!

Formally Guest - Though I respect your comments - how do you think it was possible for Texas to leap frog a 10-1 Cal team in 2005 and knock them out of a BCS game? If you recall, Cal never played a game after So. Miss, while Texas did not play in the Big-12 Championship game (OU and Col) and solely because of the "strength of conference", the BSC dropped Cal from #4 to #6, dropping them behind Texas and an idle Utah and out of a BCS game.
I believe that with the increased conference strength of schedule, what happened to Oregon three years ago and USC last year would not have occurred. Instead, they were taken out of the national championship game. The fact is that only us out here on the left coast see the Pac-10 as the best conference. The BSC has forgotten us 3 times in the past 4 years. Something HAS to change and going to a "Super Conference" just might be the answer. As I said before - Denver Metropolitan area is only 500 miles from BYU and Utah as well as Boise and Las Vegas being even closer. With the Mormon population making up most of the residents in those areas, our Pac-10 market would stretch even further than one might think.

There is no reason for the Pac-10 to expand. The tradition in this conference is the primary reason it works so we. Generations of fans get used to rooting against the same schools, knowing they play each year. Would anyone not want to see UW-USC every year, or UW-UO, ect?. WSU won't be kicked out despite what some wish due to the fact they are UW's rival and they draw the majority of their student body from Western Wa. WSU basketball has also made the Big Dance lately, and the Pac-10 loves that kind of exposure. I cant speak to the quality of Utah and BYU in other sports, but for example the Pac-10 wouldnt add Boise State b/c of their other sports, mainly Basketball not being strong and not creating revenue.

Addressing the comments about Pac-10 fans not traveling well or not attending Spring Games in mass, Pat Forde at ESPN did a great article breaking down the differences in Pac-10 vs SEC fans. It comes down to quality of life, and guess who easily wins? (i'll give you a hint its the conference with no drawls, sweet tea, or cupcake preseason games to they can go bowling).

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2977178&sportCat=ncf

Joe,

I said it was ridiculous, because it is. You just said that UW doesn't make up a majority. Then you conceded that UW has more alumni. I read both of your arguments, and never stated anything that you didn't say... maybe you should try reading my rebuttal before making a ridiculousarument

2 things...
when looking at 2 schools in comparison, if one has more than the other. Then the one with more would be the majority.

Also, looking at the numbers... UW ~40,000+ undergrads, ~25,000 - undergrads. if half of those have seattle ties, then AT BEST during the summer months when the football market wouldn't matter you have 40K UW vs. 13K WSU. undergrads. I'm being generous here with the numbers BTW. then you add in the alumni. with most of our alumni staying here, and majority of yours coming over, just based on our schools sizes, you cannot have more alumni than us. It's impossible. Therefore our alumni base is > WSU alumni base in number. So, in every aspect undergrad, alumni, staff, etc we are the majority.

I was very clear in repeating you verbatim. I made it clear that you did not say WSU had as much pull as UW, but that it had ALMOST as much pull as UW in Seattle. Now based on the numbers alone how could you possibly have ALMOST as much pull as UW in the seattle market. because based on sheer numbers alone it would seem to have about 1/2 of the pull UW does if you are in the dead of summer and half the WSU population is on summer break and moved to seattle.

Yes UCLA and USC share a market because they are BOTH IN THE SAME CITY. Your argument is coming across as the same idea of USC and Stanford sharing the LA market if Stanford wasn't by a large city so all the alumni moved to LA after graduation.

There really isn't a comparison, best case scenario you have 1/2 of our pull not almost as much... but more than likely the situation is much more grim for your coug alumni

Onewood, I always thought the Texas-Cal screw job had more to do with Mack Brown's politicking than with a conf championship game that UT did not even play in.

As for the 2M in the Salt Lake area, recall that the Pac-10 is already the only major college football league in a region of 53M+, so I don't think 2M more or less is enormous. If it were all about grabbing a few more eyeballs we could just as well go get UNLV and UNR. I take your point about the Mormon population, although as GO_Cougars admits, it isn't like those folks don't already follow the Pac to some extent. And I respectfully disagree with the idea that bringing in schools from 500 miles away would significantly impact the Denver metro area's viewing habits (now, CU and CSU would be a different matter, not that we really need them either).

GO_Cougars, actually I figure the MWC is already about as strong as the Big East top to bottom, even as it is. But the ACC, that's a stretch. The ACC now has FSU, Miami and VaTech in addition to the likes of GTech and Clemson.

For the record, I didn't say WSU and Oregon State were the worsts program in the Pac-10. What I said was that Harmon said it, and for the sake of argument, even if you agreed with it, it wasn't in my view a good enough reason to admit Utah and BYU that they might simply be better. Also, you have to look long-term at these things, not one year, when evaluating programs. UW obviously hasn't looked great of late on the field, but its overall program is still one that any conference would kill to have.

pattapit: First off, I don't know where you got your numbers, but UW had approximately 30,000 undergrads while WSU had about 22,000 last year. So yes, UW does have more alumni, just not nearly as much as you say.

But you are still completely missing my point here: WSU should be able to count Seattle as part of their market share because the majority (approximately 2/3) of their alumni live in Seattle. For the sake of argument, we'll say that UW has approximately the same percentage of their alumni living in Seattle. So yes, they would have more alumni. However, it is SIGNIFICANTLY easier for them to attend UW games than for WSU alumni to attend WSU games (which would require a 300+ mile trip, unless the event was in Seattle).

Therefore, it stands to reason that WSU alumni in Seattle are highly likely to be watching WSU sporting events on television. And these people aren't particularly likely to tune in to UW games as an alternative (It's the same for UW fans in Spokane, only with smaller populations).

So, by not giving WSU credit for Seattle's market share, you are discounting 2/3 of WSU alumni, people who are more likely to watch the game on TV as opposed to attend in person due to traveling distance. WSU has a strong media presence in Seattle, and they should get some credit for that.

WSU fallacies~!
DIdn't we read that WSU doesn't like to have games in December because classes are out and they don't have enough fans in the stands? Joe, why aren't all thes coug alums driving from Mcdonalds in Bellingham to check out the games?
If WSU has an equal fan base as UW then why won't they agree to play the Apple Cup in Quest Field every year?

"...that would make it worth it to alter some of the things I think help make the conference great, such as the round-robin football schedule or the traditional traveling partners in basketball. "

Hear, hear, Bob!

The Pac-10 has the nation's best schedules in both sports. Giving that up to add "The Utahs" makes absolutely no sense.

Fine I'll give you credit for the silver medal. But with all the California transplants you might be moved to bronze depending on if they have a uniform alliance to one school. ;-)

my numbers come from this statement "As of the 2006-07 autumn term, the university has 40,216 students" (en.wikipedia.com -> seach for University of washington) and this statement "The student population is 24,396 statewide.
" (en.wikipedia.com -> search for Washington State University).

The majority of Non-alumni followers for WSU are in rural areas and the East side of the state... there are over 5 mill in Seattles urban area so minus your alumni I think there is a larger population of the seattle market that wants to watch UW (non-alumni would probably not care to go to a game) or some cali school where they are from. not WSU.

In addition, I believe that the UW population (alumni, staff, undergrads) - 65K that fit into the stadium is still > than the population that wants to watch a WSU game 300+ miles away.

yes.....expand! chapionship game would be great. But my idea is this......merge with the big ten. then you add all that tradition and recruiting ground. play the championship in vegas. winner of the mega 21 plays in the rosebowl.

I like the idea of expanding the pac 10. I think Boise State would be the first pick to join the conference. Boise State doenst have a huge following but they are competitive in all sports they have shown they can compete with the pac 10.The Second could be BYU or Fresno State. As much as I hate BYU I would have to pick BYU to join over Fresno. BYU has a huge following they would be a good draw.

I'd like to revert back to the PAC-8.

I'm not a UW alum (at least yet since I could get my masters there while my mom is an alum and dad got his masters there) but I grew up in a UW family. Plus, many of my friends are also UW fans but went elsewhere for college. Growing up in Seattle, it's hard not to get into a team with great tradition, cool uniforms, and an awesome stadium.

As for Cougs, UW fans should appreciate what they bring to the state. All joking aside, they help via engineering (so does UW), but also agriculture, biofuels, veterinarians, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting that are easier to study and research in a rural area. In contrast to the Yucks, Cougs actually have redeeming qualities!!!

OWW,

You raise interesting points, although I agree with James, that Mack Brown's nagging of the national media also helped UT leapfrog Cal...and ultimately UT provided for a great rose bowl while dejected Cal stunk up their crap bowl game. So in retrospect, it made it hard to criticize people for shafting Cal and giving into Mack Brown's whoring himself to the media.

I am happy with the conference the way it is but maybe I shouldn't be. Pac-10 teams could improve their strength of schedule by having a conference championship as you point out. Or rather than expand to include BYU and play BYU in the conference championship, they could schedule BYU as on OOC team, to go along with ND and Oklahoma.

A national playoff prevents UO and USC from getting a chance to earn their way into the national title game. But your solution - while I don't like it much - is certainly more realistic than mine (a national playoff).

OWW,

Forgive me. I am retarded.

I meant: "A national playoff prevents UO and USC from NOT getting a chance to earn their way into the national title game. But your solution - while I don't like it much - is certainly more realistic than mine (a national playoff)."

Have any of you ever attended a SEC football game? A Big 12 game? (Disclosure: I went to CU and UW, and the boyfriend went to Tennessee). There are reasons the 12 team configuration works. After watching the previous seasons when the Big 10 and the Pac 10 have quiblbed over who should truly be their champion, the 12 team conferences know: they play a championship at a neutral site. That's exciting! If any of you are unsure how those conferences are divided and how their schedules are chosen - look it up on wiki. It's a really great system.

The Pac 10 is quickly becoming obsolete with their old-school thinking. Change or die.

Bob, Harmon did NOT say Oregon St. and WSU were the worst programs in the Pac-10. You said he did, but reread the article. He doesn’t say that. Actually, compared to BYU and Utah, I can’t think of any schools in the Pac-10 lately who are worse. Maybe UW and Stanford in football or Oregon State in basketball, but I don’t think those two schools would do all that well in the Pac-10.

You and many submitting comments have aptly reinforced Harmon's case about PAC-10 greed and snobbery. It's true; BYU and Utah will NEVER be invited to this party.

But make no mistake about this: If given the opportunity, and once settled in (i.e., enhanced recruiting from BCS conference status), Utah and BYU would regularly kick the hell out of Washington St. and Oregon St.

Please don't invoke the terrible ignorance of Mike Bellotti.

What's so ironic about all of this, is that conferences like the SEC and Big-12 hold similar contempt for the PAC-10 as the PAC-10 holds for the MWC. Hysterical.

Ah yes, the excitement of watching CU or some other hapless BXIIN team get curbstomped again by the Oklahoma-Texas winner at a neutral site. The excitement of a 9-6 Wake Forest-Ga Tech game before 15,000 riveted spectators in Jacksonville. Corporate Sponsored Conference Championship Game Football! Catch the Fever!!

btw, the Pac-10 no longer quibbles over who is the championship, because rather than loading up on an extra cupcake we use the 12th game to ensure that everyone actually plays everyone else, unlike the unbalanced scheds of the 12-team leagues. Imagine that, deciding it in the regular season. What a concept.

CP,

I think the only thing worse than the Big-12 and SEC championships is the Pac-10 and Big-10 basketball post season tournaments.

I just can't get up for them after the regular season. They seem like dumb*ss filler between the regular season and the bowls/NCAA tourney.

Maybe my narrow-minded reluctance to change is killing our conference and we'll all get dropped to Div I-AA. (At least then we would have a playoff system).

But the post-season hoop conference tourneys, I think, add nothing for the Pac-10. And I see a conference championship in football the same way. I am glad the big-12 people enjoy a big party after Thanksgiving in Kansas City or Dallas or whatever. That is great for them.

CP,

I have not attended a SEC game or Big-12 game, but sometimes I watch them on TV.

I like the UF-UGA regular season match up, or the UF- UT regular season match-up, or the Auburn-Alabama one, or the UT-Oklahoma.

Again, the whole "let's meet after the season and have the confernence half-champions have a do-over in Dallas" thing just doesn't hold the appeal for me like the regular season rivalry games.

Just my opinion...which may be behind the times.

Les Miles ripped the Pac-10 last year, yet he was "Ignoring the fact that USC has trampled the last four SEC teams it has faced by a combined total of 119 points is worse."
I guess for a not with it conference we do ok, considering the only teams USC has lost to have been Pac-10 foes over the past few years.

I agree the Pac-10 is fine as is. However, if the Pac 10 were to expand, Utah and BYU would be probably the best pair to bring in. They are already rivals, both are in a substanital tv market (Utah is in Salt Lake City, BYU is just ouside of it), both schools have quality baketball programs as well as football, and as I recall Utah beat UCLA 44-6 last year and BYU split with the Bruins. Also I remember BYU shellacking Oregon a few years back in their bowl game. I think they would be just as competitive as OS and Wazzu in the Pac.

I’ll make a couple of comments, even though I am “Off the PAC-10 Reservation”.

1) The Big-12 came about due to three reasons; parity in the old South-West Conference, The old Big-8 (or Big-2 plus 6) not being taken seriously after multiple bowl game defeats, and good old fashion money. (On a side note, Tom Osborne said the Big-12 would slowly kill Nebraska as a football powerhouse.)
2) If the PAC-10 does become the PAC-12, how about bringing in Hawaii and Fresno State. Both are stronger programs than Utah and BYU in my opinion.
3) If the PAC-10 and “big-10” (Not a typo, just look at last years BCS title game.) went to 12 team conferences, would that be a logistical step toward a football playoff system?

I get a little tired of the academic elitism displayed by some of the PAC-10 fans regarding BYU and Utah being unfit to grace the conference. Ratings are highly suspect, but for 2007 US News has BYU tied for 79 (with Colorado) under “National” universities. Five PAC-10 schools are ahead of BYU with Oregon and ASU falling well behind and WSU and OSU nowhere to be seen. Also, let’s have a little matching quiz. Below are the 2007 freshmen profiles for four schools; BYU, UW, Utah, and ASU. See if you can match them correctly…

A) Average ACT – 23.0 / Average GPA – N/A (minimum of 3.0 required)
B) Average ACT – 27.9 / Average GPA – 3.78
C) Middle 50% ACT – (23-29) / middle 50% GPA – (3.55-3.90)
D) Average ACT – 24.0 / Average GPA – 3.50

The correct answer would be A) ASU, B) BYU, C) UW and D) Utah. Yes, the religious bigotry of the PAC-10 presidents may keep BYU out forever, but don’t try to make academics the excuse.

On academics ---- It's more the missions of the schools and not the ratings that's the issue. All the Pac-10 schools are research institutions. Also, claiming it's "religious bigotry'' keeping BYU seems harsh considering I don't even remember BYU petitioning for membership. That's the part of the anger on this I don't get. I didn't even know BYU wanted to be a member of the Pac-10.

You nailed it! The key question is what would the new schools add to the conference?

The original article on Fox Sports mentioned football rankings and attendance. How would these enhance the Pac-10? Would those teams be ranked as highly if they played a full season against BCS conference teams (i.e., would they really be any better than some of the bottom dwellers in the Pac-10 if they played in a BCS conference)? The attendance figures are nice, but how do they help the entire conference?

Furthermore, the Pac-10 is much more than a football or basketball conference. How are these school’s baseball, softball, track & field, etc. teams?

The bottom line is the Pac-10 is already getting TV exposure and recruits in these markets (Utah, Idaho, San Diego, central California). Would adding BYU, Utah, FSU, Hawaii, etc. really bring anything new to the table? If anything, adding these schools would dilute the current earnings of the existing Pac-10 schools.

BYU will never be invited and it has nothing to do with academics, or quality of there sports programs.
The three reasons are:
1) the Pac-10 Presidents will not invite a religion based school that dosn't have complete academic freedom. i.e. The Pac-10 schools are very liberal. BYU is not.
2) BYU will not play sports on Sunday ever.
3) Why share the money. The Pac-10 and Big-10 don't even want a playoff. They have there TV contracts and there Big Bowl. Why share.

Thank you. As a born-and-raised Arizona fan, I like our conference the way it is. I think 10 is perfect. These people who claim being on ESPN would help the conference's appeal are ignoring a big point: 9 pm on our side of the country (where ESPN wants to stick the conference) is midnight back east. Do you really think Easterners are going to sit up until 2 or 2:30 in the morning to see the conclusion of a PAC-10 basketball game? If you do, you're more delusional than Tom Hansen could ever be.