Once again, Pac-10 expansion unlikely
July 22nd, 2008, 3:40 pm · 20 Comments · posted by Dan Zeiger
Texas and Southern California played a classic contest in the 2006 Rose Bowl, and the Pac-10 once had designs on the two schools being conference rivals. The Pac-10 figures to have no such aspirations now.
Judging from some of the talk surrounding Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen’s impending retirement, the conference is evidently about to be released from the shackles of the one-man prison holding it back.
Prime television contracts! Better bowl slots! Expansion!
I believe that the Pac-10’s pathway to better TV exposure — whatever that means — and bigger bowls is not as easy as Hansen’s detractors think.
I know, however, that expansion will not occur unless some sweet-deal schools emerge for the Pac-10. And unless Texas and Colorado secede from the Big 12 and belatedly reciprocate the interest the Pac-10 showed during the 1990s, that is not happening.
As Hansen told me two years ago and reiterated last year: “Not only is (expansion) not on the back burner, it’s not on the stove.”
Tom Hansen
Hansen did not come to this conclusion unilaterally. He works for 10 school presidents.
Brigham Young? Utah? Boise State? Sorry, adding any of those schools would not be a net gain for the Pac-10.
The conference resides in four of the top 14 TV markets in the country, with Los Angeles second, San Francisco/San Jose sixth, Phoenix 12th and Seattle 14th. As a result, the Pac-10 has few options to increase its average market size, thus raising the TV revenue take-home for each school — the biggest motivation a conference has to expand.
Texas (Dallas/Fort Worth, No. 5 TV market) and Colorado (Denver, No. 18) were ideal expansion candidates. Schools in the Mountain West and Western Athletic conferences — probably the only choices available to the Pac-10 — do not fit that bill.
Yes, Texas Christian of the Mountain West resides in Dallas/Fort Worth. However, in that market, the Horned Frogs are behind Texas (and perhaps Texas A&M) on the fan-base totem pole.
Also, a school’s reputation as a research institution has traditionally been important among conference presidents. That is a reason that San Diego State, which in the early 1990s made no secret of its desire to join the Pac-10, has not been seriously considered for an invitation.
Lastly, from a competition standpoint, why does the Pac-10 need to expand?
The football coaches seem to like the nine-game, round-robin Pac-10 schedule that decides a champion on the field, with no need for a conference championship game. Every school wants to play in the Los Angeles area at least once a year for recruiting purposes, and that would not be possible under a 12-team, two-division format.
As the Atlantic Coast Conference — and the sea of empty seats in Jacksonville, Fla., the last two years — have shown, a football championship game is no guarantee to be a smashing ticket-sales success.
Said Hansen, two years ago: “Our presidents have indicated that the conference is confident with who we are. Absent some very severe realignments elsewhere in Division I-A — which I don’t see at all on the horizon — we are pretty well settled in.”
I seriously doubt that has changed.
And it probably will not under a new commissioner.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Texas is nowhere near the Pacific Ocean, no schools from there should come in. I think we are fine with 10 for now. If Boise State or some others can show some consistency in winning against the big boys, then perhaps in 10 years we should re-visit them.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I celebrated Hansen’s retirement announcement, I only wish it came sooner. Expansion isn’t my beef with him, it’s doing absolutely nothing about the worst officiating in football and basketball. It’s also signing the exclusive contracts with the horrible quality fox sports networks. And whether the bowl games can be upgraded or not, it’s pretty sad he doesn’t politic for a 2nd pac 10 team in the BCS and this year screwed the whole process up supporting the stupid rose bowl taking Illinois. Good riddence to that dinosaur.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
you missed the point azmesa. Boise is too small of a TV market to be considered.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:58 am
Leo you made some great points. I can’t top any of that. FSN, lack of televised PAC games in San Diego, Pac10 bowl games and (despite some reports to the contrary) a national championship game preceeded by playoffs. Adios Hansen. Hope you dont have to watch too many Pac games on non-HD FSN during your retirement.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:28 am
i would just like to see the PAC get better bowl tie ins. I know it doesn’t mean as much anymore, but how about a Jan. 1 bowl tie in for the 2nd place PAC team against a SEC team?
If the PAC wants East Coast people to take them serious than how about some bowl tie ins with ACC and SEC teams.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 am
Interesting–thanks.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:55 am
No need to expand, the better we (PAC 10) get, the sooner the country will take note to extend their coverages, invites and accomodations. Prime geological areas of scouting is in the southwestern states for highschool athletes. The trend is changing as the PAC gets better and better. Consider that the strongest football and basket ball contenders of the country come post season are from the PAC (most coaches nation wide hate to admit it)
We don’t need to expand, we just need to accomodate the rest of the country’s sporting once we become very dominant.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Stanford and San Jose State (WAC) should switch conferences. Stanford can no longer compete with the PAC-10 football teams anyway. Interest in the football program is at an all time low. Even with a beautiful new stadium no one comes to the games. Playing CAL, USC, UCLA and the other PAC-10 teams every year would revitalize interest in (and save) State’s program. SJS is a much larger school in a very large market. Cal and Stanford could maintain their rivalry game as an out-of-conference contest. As it stands now, Stanford has about much chance to compete in football in the PAC-10 as Duke does in the SEC.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Good bye and good riddance. Perhaps we’ll get a commish who can get more than one school into the Jan 1 bowl games. How does a 3rd place ACC school get to play on New Years and the 2nd place PAC-10 school get relegated to the Holiday Bowl in December? The conference doesn’t need to expand but needs better bowl tie ins and a better national tv contract.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Steve - How can you say that Stanford should be dropped because they can’t play football? Aren’t they the leaders in Athletic National Championships? What about Basketball, Baseball, and many other sports.
That’s a ridiculous comment and I’m not even a Stanford fan.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
It amazes me how many people don’t realize that the Pac-10 has no desire to expand. I recently graduated from Oregon, so I’m very much a Pac-10 fan, and now I’m at Fresno State for graduate school. I was recently talking with a die-hard Fresno State sports fan here who adamently believes it’s just a matter of time before the Pac-10 expands to add most likely Fresno State and either Boise State, Utah, or BYU.
And I noticed both with him and with many other people online, a lot of people tend to not even take into account how good a school is at any sport other than football when talking about how they think the Pac-10 should and will expand soon. Not to mention the TV market thing talked about in this blog.
Besides, as a fan, I love that the Pac-10 can play a full round-robin schedule to decide the football champion on the field better than any other BCS conference other than the Big East. (Granted, they only have 8 teams, so it’s not like a huge sacrifice or anything…) Not to mention being able to play a full double round-robin schedule for basketball and volleyball for a much more balanced and fair conference schedule than any other top conference.
And with the 10 schools we’ve got right now, not only do the rivalries work out so well, but the traveling and scheduling works so well for those double round-robin schedules since you and your local traveling partner can travel to just one location for a weekend and get two games in.
Bottom line, I like the Pac-10 the way it is now with 10 teams.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
What I meant is that Stanford and SJS should swap conference affiliations for FOOTBALL ONLY. Stanford has many excellent sports programs but football isn’t one of them. Duke always has an excellent basketball team. They almost always are dead last in the SEC in football. Stanford woulfd probably be very competitive in the WAC conference in football, and isn’t that what sports is about..being competitive? Why be a perennial doormat in the PAC-10 just to maintain their “status” of being a PAC-10 fooball team.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Excuse me. Duke is an ACC team. They were 1-11 this past year and that one win was against an out of conference team.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
There’s a ncaa rule that states a school can not be a member of conference in one sport if their primary conference sponsors that sport. In other words SJS and Stanford would have to be either a full member or not at all. Also very unlikely the pac 10 would ever consider football only member, no benefit at all to them.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I know the PAC 10 does not wnat to expand, but lets say in a few years the college athletics landscape changes and they are sort of forced to do it. They might want to consider UNLV as a serious candidate. It is in a fairly large TV market, fits the geographical footprint, and is an excellent travel destination city. Vegas is practically So Cal anyway with the culture. Granted the football program needs a little work, but throw some BCS money at it and it would be respectable. UNLV is on a serious up swing in b-ball and would right now finish in the top 2-4 in the PAC 10. UNLV also has some other decent sports programs such as W. Soccer, W. Volleyball M&W swimming, and M&W golf. Not only that, it is the premere academic institution in Nevada and it houses a dental school and a top 100 law school. I think UNLV would be a great fit in th PAC 10.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:55 am
If you’re going to expand in the PAC-10 I would like to see SDSU and UNLV . How do you expand and not include these two schools? Both schools are rivals, geographically it makes sense, and they both bring some great cities to the PAC-10. Also not mention both schools have had considerable success in basketball. In the last three years SDSU (20-13, 22-11, 24-9) one MWC League Championship, one MWC Tournament Championship, one trips to the NIT and one to the NCAA. UNLV (27-8, 30-7, 17-13) two MWC Tournament Championships and 2 trips to the NCAA . You compare that with Arizona State and Oregon State in basketball over the last three years. OSU (13-18, 6-26, 11-21) and ASU (11-17, 8-22, 21-13) only one post season appearance between the both of them. SDSU would be competitive after a couple of years in every sport with the influx of BCS money and keeping more of the local talent in San Diego. The League could be split.
PAC-12
North
Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon St, Washington, and Washington State
South
UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, San Diego State, and UNLV
September 4th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Utah and BYU make perfect sense for any additions to the Pac 10. Fresno St, Boise St. SDSU, UNLV, and especially SJSU cannot even compare.
1. The academic standards are better than all other candidates and already in the realm of the Pac 10 Standards.
2. The Salt Lake TV market is the best available. Actually larger than Tucson (AZ) and Eugene (OU), Spokane (WSU),and all other candidates with exception to San Diego
3. Proven consistently good programs in both football and basketball.
4. This is a huge rivalry that is geographically, politically, and religiously charged. No other rivalry offers those dynamics.
5. Currently they are sustaining a conference virtually by themselves.
6. Both schools have fans that travel well. BYU’s recent game at UCLA was almost a neutral game due to the large BYU contingent. BYU has a similar following to Notre Dame, (fans wherever they go). Utah’s Fiesta Bowl in O4 was a virtual home game due the vast majority of Ute fans.
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:29 pm
BYU and Utah do look like good candidates, but the culture of those schools does not fit with the Pac 10. they claim excellent academics, but only BYU can really make that claim, the U of U is just about the same as other MWC schools and BYU only has a Pac 10 shot with the U. Both of these schools are very religiously, and conservatively based and don’t fit with the mentality of the pac 10.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Chris, just exactly what is the ‘mentallity’ of the PAC 10? Are BYU and Utah a little too dry and serious for the party schools of the PAC 10? Seriously, outside of Stanford and Cal, it’s not exactly Ivy League education now is it. And what does religion and conservatism have to do with sports? I don’t think the debate teams are held to conference schedules. I haven’t heard of basketball teams alternating religious press conferences before or even after games. I haven’t heard of too many schools who don’t want to associate with Notre Dame because of their conservative religious views. You sound like such an elitist. While its true the PAC 10 is a great conference, you boys on the coast are having a tough year so far. Maybe you didn’t like the ‘mentality’ of BYU hanging 59-0 on the Bruins this year or the other wins handed down by the lowly MWC. The ONLY reason why the PAC 10 would ever think about adding BYU or Utah or anyone else is to make more money. But please, do explain the ‘mentality’ of the PAC 10 - I can’t wait to read it.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
The win gave the Mountain West Conference a 6-1 record against the Pac-10 this season.
This most certainly does not fit with the mentality of the PAC-10.