tlongII
06-09-2010, 09:29 AM
http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2010/06/canzano_in_conference_realignm.html
Adding Texas and Oklahoma and four other influential football friends from the Big 12 Conference does not go down as a good idea if you're the Pacific-10 Conference.
Rather -- it's a great idea.
Forget the hand wringing that is going on internally at the University of Oregon and Oregon State. Forget the fear that the in-state colleges that have finally figured out USC would now lose their footing and be faced with new big-stage challenges. I think the Ducks and Beavers would be just fine in an expanded conference that would be the nation's best.
We're really talking about an expanded recruiting territory that would include Texas, a lucrative television deal, more exposure, better competition and the addition of as much as $20 million to each conference member.
Looking for negatives here?
Yeah. I know. We'd all have to deal with rabid and irrational Sooners football fans on a regular basis. But beyond that, the expansion to a Pac-16 is a wonderful idea. And it would signal the beginning of the end of the flawed Bowl Championship Series system.
What we have here is a rare occasion in which financial gain lines up with what really is best for the conference. Too often (See: BCS title game) the big-money decisions in athletics result in puzzling and absurd scenarios. But with this one, the trail of money leads the conference to a better place.
The Civil War rivalry isn't hurt by expansion. The strength of schedule is improved with the addition of better programs. The "USC and everyone else" reputation is blown up. And what's left is a power football conference that has only one missing piece.
It's this: a new conference name.
The Big Pack? How about Super Pac Conference? Sweet 16, anyone? There's time to figure that out. What there will never be is a good reason to turn away an opportunity to make the conference relevant at a time in which college football is trying to find its way.
The death of the current BCS system is the best byproduct of going to a super-conference format. It looks like college football is headed toward four big conferences, with their champions competing for a national title.
The backroom dealing already is under way. And the Pac-10 could put itself in position to dictate some of the format by being the first to move and ensuring that they control three major power brokers (USC, Oklahoma and Texas).
It's understandable that Oregon would be anxious about the addition of two more blue-chip programs. The Ducks just pounded USC and look like they've arrived as a top-three program in the conference under coach Chip Kelly.
Also, Oregon State is viewed as a viable No. 3 in a conference where that means an annual sniff at the Rose Bowl and Holiday Bowl. Coach Mike Riley has done a wonderful job of making the Beavers relevant in a conference where that hasn't been easy.
After last year's epic Civil War it felt a lot like the conference had changed. I watched Kelly and Riley shake hands at Autzen Stadium after the game, and hoped that we'd get a chance to see them in a series of meaningful rematches over the next decade.
That doesn't have to change, even with the addition of quality conference members. Oregon has the infrastructure of a major college football program, and a great offensive coach. Oregon State does more with less than anyone else, and has given USC fits in the last half decade.
What could our in-state colleges do with an additional $20 million in annual revenue?
Think on that.
The landscape of college football is changing, regardless of what the Pac-10 does. The answer for the conference can't be status quo.
Sixteen sounds sweet to me.
Adding Texas and Oklahoma and four other influential football friends from the Big 12 Conference does not go down as a good idea if you're the Pacific-10 Conference.
Rather -- it's a great idea.
Forget the hand wringing that is going on internally at the University of Oregon and Oregon State. Forget the fear that the in-state colleges that have finally figured out USC would now lose their footing and be faced with new big-stage challenges. I think the Ducks and Beavers would be just fine in an expanded conference that would be the nation's best.
We're really talking about an expanded recruiting territory that would include Texas, a lucrative television deal, more exposure, better competition and the addition of as much as $20 million to each conference member.
Looking for negatives here?
Yeah. I know. We'd all have to deal with rabid and irrational Sooners football fans on a regular basis. But beyond that, the expansion to a Pac-16 is a wonderful idea. And it would signal the beginning of the end of the flawed Bowl Championship Series system.
What we have here is a rare occasion in which financial gain lines up with what really is best for the conference. Too often (See: BCS title game) the big-money decisions in athletics result in puzzling and absurd scenarios. But with this one, the trail of money leads the conference to a better place.
The Civil War rivalry isn't hurt by expansion. The strength of schedule is improved with the addition of better programs. The "USC and everyone else" reputation is blown up. And what's left is a power football conference that has only one missing piece.
It's this: a new conference name.
The Big Pack? How about Super Pac Conference? Sweet 16, anyone? There's time to figure that out. What there will never be is a good reason to turn away an opportunity to make the conference relevant at a time in which college football is trying to find its way.
The death of the current BCS system is the best byproduct of going to a super-conference format. It looks like college football is headed toward four big conferences, with their champions competing for a national title.
The backroom dealing already is under way. And the Pac-10 could put itself in position to dictate some of the format by being the first to move and ensuring that they control three major power brokers (USC, Oklahoma and Texas).
It's understandable that Oregon would be anxious about the addition of two more blue-chip programs. The Ducks just pounded USC and look like they've arrived as a top-three program in the conference under coach Chip Kelly.
Also, Oregon State is viewed as a viable No. 3 in a conference where that means an annual sniff at the Rose Bowl and Holiday Bowl. Coach Mike Riley has done a wonderful job of making the Beavers relevant in a conference where that hasn't been easy.
After last year's epic Civil War it felt a lot like the conference had changed. I watched Kelly and Riley shake hands at Autzen Stadium after the game, and hoped that we'd get a chance to see them in a series of meaningful rematches over the next decade.
That doesn't have to change, even with the addition of quality conference members. Oregon has the infrastructure of a major college football program, and a great offensive coach. Oregon State does more with less than anyone else, and has given USC fits in the last half decade.
What could our in-state colleges do with an additional $20 million in annual revenue?
Think on that.
The landscape of college football is changing, regardless of what the Pac-10 does. The answer for the conference can't be status quo.
Sixteen sounds sweet to me.