Pac-10 Conference

[johngateswhiteley]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/310734-the-pac-10-college-footballs-flagship-conference


The Pac-10: College Football's Flagship Conference
by Tyler Springs


Given the recent buzz over the Big Ten's search for a 12th member, it's no surprise that the Pac-10 has followed suit in saying that it will examine possible additions that would, if added, most likely begin Pac-10 play in 2012 (the Pac-10's TV contracts expire after the 2011-2012 season).

Doing so, however, would be incredibly foolish.

"There's a pretty high hurdle for us, academically, athletically, geographically," commissioner Larry Scott commented in a press conference held on Wednesday. "We're hard-pressed to really see how you improve upon the structure of the Pac-10 as it is with five sets of natural rivals in four states."

Scott couldn't be more right in having reservations about conference expansion, specifically for the Pac-10. Of all the conferences in the FBS, the Pac-10 is the one that actually got things right in terms of balancing academics, quality football and conference structure.


Academics
The Pac-10 takes the term "student-athlete" seriously: five of its schools are ranked in the top 50 in the US News "Best Colleges" rankings (including Stanford at No. 4), which places them in a tie for second with the Big Ten (the ACC has six schools).

Both the ACC and Pac-10 also have four teams ranked in the top 30, but all four of the Pac-10 schools are bowl-bound this season, whereas only UNC will be representing the ACC in the postseason this year. The SEC has two top 50 schools, Florida and Vanderbilt, and Texas is the only representative from the Big XII.


Quality Football
USC has won two (nearly three) of the last six national championships. Stanford-Cal, USC-UCLA, Washington-Washington State, and Oregon-Oregon State are all celebrated rivalry games. Ten Heisman winners have come from the Pac-10, and its schools have claimed 20 national championships over the course of college football history.

Over 200 former Pac-10 players currently hold roster spots in the NFL, accounting for more than 10 percent of the league. In the last six years, the Pac-10 is 22-11 in bowl games.

Stadiums like the LA Coliseum, the Autzen Zoo, Husky Stadium, Sun Devil Stadium, and the Rose Bowl provide storied venues in which one can see great football played. Given the atmosphere, the history, and the talent on the field, the Pac-10 gives fans one of the best college football tickets around.


Conference Structure
The Pac-10 has 10 teams from a well-defined geographic region. There are clearly defined rivalries for every team, and each team plays every other team round-robin style in order to determine the conference champion, something that no other conference of its size (or larger) guarantees.

For example, in 2005, Georgia went 13-1 en route to an SEC Championship and a loss to West Virginia in the Sugar Bowl. Georgia's conference record (the factor that sent them to the SEC Championship) was 6-2, including wins over SEC West opponents Arkansas and Mississippi State, both of whom had losing records.

Florida beat Georgia in '05, but ended up 5-3 in conference play with losses to SEC West opponents Alabama and LSU, both of whom had winning records.

Did Georgia really win the SEC East that season? Many would say yes, but the argument can be made that things might have been different if Florida and Georgia had both been forced to play the same conference schedule. With the Pac-10, scheduling arguments like this one are irrelevant because everyone plays the same schedule.

This is the advantage of a 10-team league: everyone plays everyone else, there is still room for a few non-conference matchups, and the conference champion is undisputed (even the Big 10, with 11 teams, could do this, but they choose to have more non-conference games instead, which muddies the waters of conference champion discussions in many years).


So What?
If the Pac-10 were to expand, whom would they take? BYU and Air Force seem like good candidates given their competitive academics and recently resurgent programs, but the Mountain West Conference wouldn't be too keen on giving up two of their better competitors, especially when they are statistically very close to being eligible for a BCS spot.

From a competition standpoint, Boise State and Fresno State would be two teams worth looking at from the Western Athletic Conference, but that risks watering down the academic standards of the conference.

Hawaii, Nevada, and UNLV would open the Pac-10 up to more TV markets (Honolulu, Reno, and Las Vegas), but only Nevada has proven itself to be a consistently decent team as of late, and only once since 2000 have they won the WAC title.

The only reason for the Pac-10 to expand is the money they might be able to garner if they hold a championship game. According to data provided by the US Department of Education, the Pac-10 brought in approximately $255 million in revenue last year, which is on par with the figure given for the ACC, a conference that already has a championship game.

That's not to say that the Pac-10 is rollin' in the dough (according to ESPN's Tim Griffin, they're not in the top four in conference revenue sharing, and they're also way behind the non-championship Big Ten's revenue total), but considering that the Pac-10 is keeping up with a conference that already holds a championship game, they aren't doing too badly.

I'm sure you can make the argument that you can find better football in the SEC, better scholarship in the Big Ten, and a better game structure in the FCS playoff system, but nowhere will you come as close to getting all three in the same place as you will in the Pac-10.

It would be great to get the revenue from an additional school or two, but realistically, the Pac-10's drive for dollars would be shortchanging itself in regard to football and academics. Whatever cents a 12-team conference may make, it wouldn't make sense for the Pac-10—they already have all the ingredients to market themselves as the conference that best exemplifies the ideals of college football.

[K-State Spur]

fluff

[johngateswhiteley]

fluff

you're fluff.

[symple19]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/310734-the-pac-10-college-footballs-flagship-conference


The Pac-10: College Football's Flagship Conference
by Tyler Springs


Given the recent buzz over the Big Ten's search for a 12th member, it's no surprise that the Pac-10 has followed suit in saying that it will examine possible additions that would, if added, most likely begin Pac-10 play in 2012 (the Pac-10's TV contracts expire after the 2011-2012 season).

Doing so, however, would be incredibly foolish.

"There's a pretty high hurdle for us, academically, athletically, geographically," commissioner Larry Scott commented in a press conference held on Wednesday. "We're hard-pressed to really see how you improve upon the structure of the Pac-10 as it is with five sets of natural rivals in four states."

Scott couldn't be more right in having reservations about conference expansion, specifically for the Pac-10. Of all the conferences in the FBS, the Pac-10 is the one that actually got things right in terms of balancing academics, quality football and conference structure.


Academics
The Pac-10 takes the term "student-athlete" seriously: five of its schools are ranked in the top 50 in the US News "Best Colleges" rankings (including Stanford at No. 4), which places them in a tie for second with the Big Ten (the ACC has six schools).

Both the ACC and Pac-10 also have four teams ranked in the top 30, but all four of the Pac-10 schools are bowl-bound this season, whereas only UNC will be representing the ACC in the postseason this year. The SEC has two top 50 schools, Florida and Vanderbilt, and Texas is the only representative from the Big XII.


Quality Football
USC has won two (nearly three) of the last six national championships. Stanford-Cal, USC-UCLA, Washington-Washington State, and Oregon-Oregon State are all celebrated rivalry games. Ten Heisman winners have come from the Pac-10, and its schools have claimed 20 national championships over the course of college football history.

Over 200 former Pac-10 players currently hold roster spots in the NFL, accounting for more than 10 percent of the league. In the last six years, the Pac-10 is 22-11 in bowl games.

Stadiums like the LA Coliseum, the Autzen Zoo, Husky Stadium, Sun Devil Stadium, and the Rose Bowl provide storied venues in which one can see great football played. Given the atmosphere, the history, and the talent on the field, the Pac-10 gives fans one of the best college football tickets around.


Conference Structure
The Pac-10 has 10 teams from a well-defined geographic region. There are clearly defined rivalries for every team, and each team plays every other team round-robin style in order to determine the conference champion, something that no other conference of its size (or larger) guarantees.

For example, in 2005, Georgia went 13-1 en route to an SEC Championship and a loss to West Virginia in the Sugar Bowl. Georgia's conference record (the factor that sent them to the SEC Championship) was 6-2, including wins over SEC West opponents Arkansas and Mississippi State, both of whom had losing records.

Florida beat Georgia in '05, but ended up 5-3 in conference play with losses to SEC West opponents Alabama and LSU, both of whom had winning records.

Did Georgia really win the SEC East that season? Many would say yes, but the argument can be made that things might have been different if Florida and Georgia had both been forced to play the same conference schedule. With the Pac-10, scheduling arguments like this one are irrelevant because everyone plays the same schedule.

This is the advantage of a 10-team league: everyone plays everyone else, there is still room for a few non-conference matchups, and the conference champion is undisputed (even the Big 10, with 11 teams, could do this, but they choose to have more non-conference games instead, which muddies the waters of conference champion discussions in many years).


So What?
If the Pac-10 were to expand, whom would they take? BYU and Air Force seem like good candidates given their competitive academics and recently resurgent programs, but the Mountain West Conference wouldn't be too keen on giving up two of their better competitors, especially when they are statistically very close to being eligible for a BCS spot.

From a competition standpoint, Boise State and Fresno State would be two teams worth looking at from the Western Athletic Conference, but that risks watering down the academic standards of the conference.

Hawaii, Nevada, and UNLV would open the Pac-10 up to more TV markets (Honolulu, Reno, and Las Vegas), but only Nevada has proven itself to be a consistently decent team as of late, and only once since 2000 have they won the WAC title.

The only reason for the Pac-10 to expand is the money they might be able to garner if they hold a championship game. According to data provided by the US Department of Education, the Pac-10 brought in approximately $255 million in revenue last year, which is on par with the figure given for the ACC, a conference that already has a championship game.

That's not to say that the Pac-10 is rollin' in the dough (according to ESPN's Tim Griffin, they're not in the top four in conference revenue sharing, and they're also way behind the non-championship Big Ten's revenue total), but considering that the Pac-10 is keeping up with a conference that already holds a championship game, they aren't doing too badly.

I'm sure you can make the argument that you can find better football in the SEC, better scholarship in the Big Ten, and a better game structure in the FCS playoff system, but nowhere will you come as close to getting all three in the same place as you will in the Pac-10.

It would be great to get the revenue from an additional school or two, but realistically, the Pac-10's drive for dollars would be shortchanging itself in regard to football and academics. Whatever cents a 12-team conference may make, it wouldn't make sense for the Pac-10—they already have all the ingredients to market themselves as the conference that best exemplifies the ideals of college football.

JGW, you're a solid poster, but the Pac-10 w/ 12 is infinitely better than 10. There would be NO arguments left as to why the PAC-10 isn't as good as any other conference. They could dominate w/ piece of mind, which I think they may do if given the chance. Add some niggaz, for real

[symple19]

lol

[K-State Spur]

you're fluff.

it's a ridiculous fan piece that over-states the positives and glosses over the negatives.

[johngateswhiteley]

it's a ridiculous fan piece that over-states the positives and glosses over the negatives.

or...its accurate. granted there is negatives to every conference's situation, but in the Pac-10, more so than any other, the good outweighs the bad.

you disagree?

[K-State Spur]

It's a fan piece, not an in-depth comparative study.

The Author (I rest my case): http://bleacherreport.com/users/110224-tyler-springs

[johngateswhiteley]

It's a fan piece, not an in-depth comparative study.

The Author (I rest my case): http://bleacherreport.com/users/110224-tyler-springs

and? he can't have an accurate opinion? btw, he's not a pac-10 guy.

[K-State Spur]

and? he can't have an accurate opinion? btw, he's not a pac-10 guy.

he can and might. but let's not portray it as a legit article from a legit writer - it's the equivalent of rehashing just another post on another message board.

[MajorMike]

"For example, in 2005, Georgia went 13-1 en route to an SEC Championship and a loss to West Virginia in the Sugar Bowl. Georgia's conference record (the factor that sent them to the SEC Championship) was 6-2, including wins over SEC West opponents Arkansas and Mississippi State, both of whom had losing records."

How could they be 13-1 if they were 6-2 in conf?

That who section on SEC is sort of erratic and stupid anyway, plus the statement: "With the Pac-10, scheduling arguments like this one are irrelevant because everyone plays the same schedule." is moot because have fun fixing a tie when SC beats Cal, Cal beats Ore and Ore beats SC. I know, I know, it will never happen because SC will inexplicably lose to a bottom-tier P10 team every year, but you get the idea. It is easy to make an arguement when you haven't been faced with the worst case yet.

"Quality Football
USC has won two (nearly three) of the last six national championships. Stanford-Cal, USC-UCLA, Washington-Washington State, and Oregon-Oregon State are all celebrated rivalry games. Ten Heisman winners have come from the Pac-10, and its schools have claimed 20 national championships over the course of college football history.

Over 200 former Pac-10 players currently hold roster spots in the NFL, accounting for more than 10 percent of the league."

Take away USC, and you have a league that is on par with CUSA or MWC or WAC. If you took uo ot UT or Neb out of the B12, you still have an annual continder; same could be said for Fla/Bama/LSU/UGA or Ohio/Penn/Mich or Miami/VaTek/GaTek/FSU, etc etc. P10 is a one football team conf. Yeah, retort about how SC didn't even get the BCS bid this year... however this is the first year EVER in the P10 that a team has gotten its 2nd BCS bid other than SC (Ore is BCS for 2nd time, no one else has been more than once).

No P10 team aside from SC has come close to sniffing a BCS title since Oregon couldn't even rate the BCS game when CU blew out Neb. Every other league has had multiple teams in multiple title games.

You are trying to tell me that any P10 rivalry is anywhere close to uo/UT or UT/atm? OSU/uo is just as manic, and in many instances even more so because it extends to all sports and not just football, than any cross-state P10 rivalry. Mizzou/KU is the most played rivalry there is. uo/Neb is epic altho not annual anymore. Even CU/Neb I would argue is as good a rivalry as any of those. Trying to pump up some of that stuff in there makes it seem much more than it is or ever will be.

Props to the P10; they had a nice year in the football computers. They should take this chance to crow because we know every other year they are a bunch of putz's and SC.

I do agree that there is no reason to expand because there is no situation that would benifit them economically from any of the teams anywhere close to them. The academic arguement is completely laughable, however. Trying to compare Stanford to anyone is silly, because they are Stanford, but go across the bay and you can enjoy some of the best smoke anywhere at the ultimate smoke'em hippie tree hugger school.

[johngateswhiteley]

"For example, in 2005, Georgia went 13-1 en route to an SEC Championship and a loss to West Virginia in the Sugar Bowl. Georgia's conference record (the factor that sent them to the SEC Championship) was 6-2, including wins over SEC West opponents Arkansas and Mississippi State, both of whom had losing records."

How could they be 13-1 if they were 6-2 in conf?

That who section on SEC is sort of erratic and stupid anyway, plus the statement: "With the Pac-10, scheduling arguments like this one are irrelevant because everyone plays the same schedule." is moot because have fun fixing a tie when SC beats Cal, Cal beats Ore and Ore beats SC. I know, I know, it will never happen because SC will inexplicably lose to a bottom-tier P10 team every year, but you get the idea. It is easy to make an arguement when you haven't been faced with the worst case yet.

"Quality Football
USC has won two (nearly three) of the last six national championships. Stanford-Cal, USC-UCLA, Washington-Washington State, and Oregon-Oregon State are all celebrated rivalry games. Ten Heisman winners have come from the Pac-10, and its schools have claimed 20 national championships over the course of college football history.

Over 200 former Pac-10 players currently hold roster spots in the NFL, accounting for more than 10 percent of the league."

Take away USC, and you have a league that is on par with CUSA or MWC or WAC. If you took uo ot UT or Neb out of the B12, you still have an annual continder; same could be said for Fla/Bama/LSU/UGA or Ohio/Penn/Mich or Miami/VaTek/GaTek/FSU, etc etc. P10 is a one football team conf. Yeah, retort about how SC didn't even get the BCS bid this year... however this is the first year EVER in the P10 that a team has gotten its 2nd BCS bid other than SC (Ore is BCS for 2nd time, no one else has been more than once).

No P10 team aside from SC has come close to sniffing a BCS title since Oregon couldn't even rate the BCS game when CU blew out Neb. Every other league has had multiple teams in multiple title games.

You are trying to tell me that any P10 rivalry is anywhere close to uo/UT or UT/atm? OSU/uo is just as manic, and in many instances even more so because it extends to all sports and not just football, than any cross-state P10 rivalry. Mizzou/KU is the most played rivalry there is. uo/Neb is epic altho not annual anymore. Even CU/Neb I would argue is as good a rivalry as any of those. Trying to pump up some of that stuff in there makes it seem much more than it is or ever will be.

Props to the P10; they had a nice year in the football computers. They should take this chance to crow because we know every other year they are a bunch of putz's and SC.

I do agree that there is no reason to expand because there is no situation that would benifit them economically from any of the teams anywhere close to them. The academic arguement is completely laughable, however. Trying to compare Stanford to anyone is silly, because they are Stanford, but go across the bay and you can enjoy some of the best smoke anywhere at the ultimate smoke'em hippie tree hugger school.

for a 10 team conference, the amount of schools in the top 30 (academic) is fantastic. and lest we forget, the beat down oregon gave oklahoma state not long ago...

as for rivalries? you just made it clear you don't watch pac-10 football or don't care about it...

[Phillip]

pac 10 sucks ass

[MajorMike]

for a 10 team conference, the amount of schools in the top 30 (academic) is fantastic. and lest we forget, the beat down oregon gave oklahoma state not long ago...

as for rivalries? you just made it clear you don't watch pac-10 football or don't care about it...

Nice way to not address anything and spout more of nothing. What, you want to look at one game where you compare your this year's conf champ with a 3rd/4th place team in the B12 when they had to mount a furious comeback in the 2nd half after the star player for the other team was hurt? Bravo if that's what you have to hang your hat on. I'm glad your runner up could handle last years 5th place B12 team after all that. That's a great conf.

I guess you must be right; that UDub/Wazzu game is every bit as good and storied as UT/atm.

[johngateswhiteley]

Nice way to not address anything and spout more of nothing. What, you want to look at one game where you compare your this year's conf champ with a 3rd/4th place team in the B12 when they had to mount a furious comeback in the 2nd half after the star player for the other team was hurt? Bravo if that's what you have to hang your hat on. I'm glad your runner up could handle last years 5th place B12 team after all that. That's a great conf.

I guess you must be right; that UDub/Wazzu game is every bit as good and storied as UT/atm.

i did address most of what you talked about. its ridiculous to defend rivalries in the Pac-10, they are beyond reproach.

...and oklahoma state was ranked ahead of oregon...plus, i can't control who the bowl invites. further, tekk was so good they got bitch slapped by ole miss. aka, oklahoma state was the 4th place team for all intents and purposes...but the game wasn't close, so there isn't any argument.

[DMX7]

I don't know if it's fluff but it's not a very good analysis.

This person clearly doesn't understand the nuances of expansion. Adding teams in large TV markets doesn't mean shit if those programs don't actually draw huge ratings in those markets. If this weren't true, then theoretically, UTSA should be more valuable than Texas because San Antonio is a larger media market than Austin according to Nielson Media.

Also, expanding to include programs like Boise St. discounts the value of all other sports including everything from basketball to volleyball. Many of the current mid-majors that have hot football programs are disastrous at most every other sport, so you'd be cheapening the rest of the conference's athletic profile if you added one of those programs. And that's a pretty big thing to gloss over.

To me, the only team the Pac-10 should be serious about taking is Utah. It's exercised a good presence in a solid market, has solid academics and competes well in most sports including basketball where they've been to at least 1 Final Four in the last 15 years.

[johngateswhiteley]

I don't know if it's fluff but it's not a very good analysis.

This person clearly doesn't understand the nuances of expansion. Adding teams in large TV markets doesn't mean shit if those programs don't actually draw huge ratings in those markets. If this weren't true, then theoretically, UTSA should be more valuable than Texas because San Antonio is a larger media market than Austin according to Nielson Media.

Also, expanding to include programs like Boise St. discounts the value of all other sports including everything from basketball to volleyball. Many of the current mid-majors that have hot football programs are disastrous at most every other sport, so you'd be cheapening the rest of the conference's athletic profile if you added one of those programs. And that's a pretty big thing to gloss over.

To me, the only team the Pac-10 should be serious about taking is Utah. It's exercised a good presence in a solid market, has solid academics and competes well in most sports including basketball where they've been to at least 1 Final Four in the last 15 years.

huh? the Pac-10 would never add boise state...never.

[MajorMike]

...but the game wasn't close, so there isn't any argument.

Wow, you obviously didn't actually WATCH the game, did you.

I think that the most telling thing in the world is the conference's bowl bids.

B12 #2 vs SEC #3 Cotton (3 mil)
P10 #2 vs B12 #3 Holiday (2.2 mil)
B12 #4 vs B10 #4 Alamo (2.25 mil)
P10 #3 vs B12 #5 Sun (1.9 mil)
B12 #6 vs B10 #5 Insight (1.2 mil)
B12 #7 vs SEC #8 Indep (1.1 mil)
B12 #8 vs Navy/CUSA Texas (1.25 mil)
P10 #4 vs ACC #7 Emerald (750k)
P10 #5 vs MWC Las Vegas (1 mil)
P10 #6 vs MWC Poinsettia (750k)

Even the Bowl lineups show what the world thinks of the P10 on a regualr basis; not much. The #3 P10 team plays the #5 B12 team (which in a normal B12 year is the #6 B12 team). The B12's #4 plays the B10's #4 while the P10's #4 plays the ACC #7. The B12 5 and 6 play P10 3 and B10 5 while the P10 5 and 6 play a couple MWC teams. While the B12 #4 is playing in a very respectable bowl earning 2.25 mil, the P10 #4 is playing in the poorly thought of bowl in a crappy city in a place not meant to watch football and gets 750k. The B12's #8 team is the only team playing a non-BCS and they earn more money than the #4 P10 team.

The Texas and Independence Bowls may be a joke, but the bigger joke is that the B12 3/4/5/6 go to the Holiday/Alamo/Sun/Insight, while the P10 3/4/5/6 go to the Sun/Emerald/Las Vegas/Poinsettia. Boy that P10 sure garners respect, don't it?

And the SEC has a game tier up on B12 with Captial One Bowl.

[DMX7]

huh? the Pac-10 would never add boise state...never.

That's what I'm saying. However, your article seems to imply that they should at least look at Boise St. when I say they shouldn't even consider it.

"From a competition standpoint, Boise State and Fresno State would be two teams worth looking at from the Western Athletic Conference, but that risks watering down the academic standards of the conference."

[johngateswhiteley]

Meh, that doesn't mean a whole lot, imo. Some of it has to do with the Pac only having 10 teams, plus that shits outdated. Further, osu was the 4th best team last year...forget the north. And I did watch the whole game, it wasn't as close as the score...Oregon beat that ass.

[MajorMike]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/310734-the-pac-10-college-footballs-flagship-conference


The Pac-10: College Football's Flagship Conference
by Tyler Springs


Given the recent buzz over the Big Ten's search for a 12th member, it's no surprise that the Pac-10 has followed suit in saying that it will examine possible additions that would, if added, most likely begin Pac-10 play in 2012 (the Pac-10's TV contracts expire after the 2011-2012 season).

Doing so, however, would be incredibly foolish.

"There's a pretty high hurdle for us, academically, athletically, geographically," commissioner Larry Scott commented in a press conference held on Wednesday. "We're hard-pressed to really see how you improve upon the structure of the Pac-10 as it is with five sets of natural rivals in four states."

Scott couldn't be more right in having reservations about conference expansion, specifically for the Pac-10. Of all the conferences in the FBS, the Pac-10 is the one that actually got things right in terms of balancing academics, quality football and conference structure.


Academics
The Pac-10 takes the term "student-athlete" seriously: five of its schools are ranked in the top 50 in the US News "Best Colleges" rankings (including Stanford at No. 4), which places them in a tie for second with the Big Ten (the ACC has six schools).

Both the ACC and Pac-10 also have four teams ranked in the top 30, but all four of the Pac-10 schools are bowl-bound this season, whereas only UNC will be representing the ACC in the postseason this year. The SEC has two top 50 schools, Florida and Vanderbilt, and Texas is the only representative from the Big XII.


Quality Football
USC has won two (nearly three) of the last six national championships. Stanford-Cal, USC-UCLA, Washington-Washington State, and Oregon-Oregon State are all celebrated rivalry games. Ten Heisman winners have come from the Pac-10, and its schools have claimed 20 national championships over the course of college football history.

Over 200 former Pac-10 players currently hold roster spots in the NFL, accounting for more than 10 percent of the league. In the last six years, the Pac-10 is 22-11 in bowl games.

Stadiums like the LA Coliseum, the Autzen Zoo, Husky Stadium, Sun Devil Stadium, and the Rose Bowl provide storied venues in which one can see great football played. Given the atmosphere, the history, and the talent on the field, the Pac-10 gives fans one of the best college football tickets around.


Conference Structure
The Pac-10 has 10 teams from a well-defined geographic region. There are clearly defined rivalries for every team, and each team plays every other team round-robin style in order to determine the conference champion, something that no other conference of its size (or larger) guarantees.

For example, in 2005, Georgia went 13-1 en route to an SEC Championship and a loss to West Virginia in the Sugar Bowl. Georgia's conference record (the factor that sent them to the SEC Championship) was 6-2, including wins over SEC West opponents Arkansas and Mississippi State, both of whom had losing records.

Florida beat Georgia in '05, but ended up 5-3 in conference play with losses to SEC West opponents Alabama and LSU, both of whom had winning records.

Did Georgia really win the SEC East that season? Many would say yes, but the argument can be made that things might have been different if Florida and Georgia had both been forced to play the same conference schedule. With the Pac-10, scheduling arguments like this one are irrelevant because everyone plays the same schedule.

This is the advantage of a 10-team league: everyone plays everyone else, there is still room for a few non-conference matchups, and the conference champion is undisputed (even the Big 10, with 11 teams, could do this, but they choose to have more non-conference games instead, which muddies the waters of conference champion discussions in many years).


So What?
If the Pac-10 were to expand, whom would they take? BYU and Air Force seem like good candidates given their competitive academics and recently resurgent programs, but the Mountain West Conference wouldn't be too keen on giving up two of their better competitors, especially when they are statistically very close to being eligible for a BCS spot.

From a competition standpoint, Boise State and Fresno State would be two teams worth looking at from the Western Athletic Conference, but that risks watering down the academic standards of the conference.

Hawaii, Nevada, and UNLV would open the Pac-10 up to more TV markets (Honolulu, Reno, and Las Vegas), but only Nevada has proven itself to be a consistently decent team as of late, and only once since 2000 have they won the WAC title.

The only reason for the Pac-10 to expand is the money they might be able to garner if they hold a championship game. According to data provided by the US Department of Education, the Pac-10 brought in approximately $255 million in revenue last year, which is on par with the figure given for the ACC, a conference that already has a championship game.

That's not to say that the Pac-10 is rollin' in the dough (according to ESPN's Tim Griffin, they're not in the top four in conference revenue sharing, and they're also way behind the non-championship Big Ten's revenue total), but considering that the Pac-10 is keeping up with a conference that already holds a championship game, they aren't doing too badly.

I'm sure you can make the argument that you can find better football in the SEC, better scholarship in the Big Ten, and a better game structure in the FCS playoff system, but nowhere will you come as close to getting all three in the same place as you will in the Pac-10.

It would be great to get the revenue from an additional school or two, but realistically, the Pac-10's drive for dollars would be shortchanging itself in regard to football and academics. Whatever cents a 12-team conference may make, it wouldn't make sense for the Pac-10—they already have all the ingredients to market themselves as the conference that best exemplifies the ideals of college football.



So how's that workin' out for ya?

[johngateswhiteley]

So how's that workin' out for ya?

your an infant. oregon represented, stanford represented (without Luck), USC represented and UCLA represented. Oregon State, Cal and Arizona obviously either weren't ready or weren't that good. imo, oregon state just wasn't mentally ready...thats a solid team and Riley was 5-0 in bowls.

[samikeyp]

When did it become ok to just "represent" instead of actually winning the game?

[leemajors]

When did it become ok to just "represent" instead of actually winning the game?

When it suits his purposes. Enfant terrible.

[Spursfan092120]

Funny...JGW and tlongII were going on and on about how the Pac-10 was going to show they were the best conference come bowl season, and now it's ok that they "represented?" What did they represent? Defeat? Horseshoes and hand grenades, my friend. That's the only garbage that almost counts in.

[The Gemini Method]

I don't know if I could support such a piece being a PAC-10 supporter and all, because of the mistakes in the content. The PAC-10 sent 7 teams to bowls this year and the author said 6...just saying.

[MajorMike]

I pointed out a couple errors, myself. jgw chose to ignore and throw in a tangent or two, while using his normal compliment of small-witted insults.

[johngateswhiteley]

I don't know if I could support such a piece being a PAC-10 supporter and all, because of the mistakes in the content. The PAC-10 sent 7 teams to bowls this year and the author said 6...just saying.

Ha. I'm just bringing pub to the Pac 10...