The Pac-10 is currently looking for a new commissioner. Outgoing commissioner Tom Hansen has been a famous football traditionalist, resisting the BCS, conference basketball tournaments, and conference expansion.
If the new commissioner of the Pac-10 takes a more serious look at the revenue generated from expansion, what are the conference's options?

Below is a legitimate comparison of the non-BCS Western teams that come up as candidates for expansion: BYU, Utah, UNLV, UNR, Fresno, SDSU, Hawaii, Boise State, and TCU.

I wanted to look at real numbers for the kinds of things a conference should look for when looking to expand: football success, market, academics — not just hype or message board hyperbole.

Also for good measure, I compared the Western schools to the non-BCS Eastern schools often reported as next in line for invitations to the Big East, if and when it expands: East Carolina, Central Florida, Memphis, and Southern Miss.

Finally, we'll compare some numbers from the Big XII schools that are often mentioned as Pac-10 candidates: Texas A&M, Texas, and Colorado.

I realize that the Pac-10 wants the Texas schools, and I would too, but so did the Big Eight in 1995. Their original plan was reported to be to only take Texas and A&M, much like the Pac-10 would like to do now.

The Texas government (with pressure from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches) wouldn't allow only those two to leave the SWC alone in 1995, and I doubt they'll allow them to leave now.

The numbers show the strongest candidates to be Texas and A&M. After that, a Colorado/Utah invitation would arguably be a better fit culturally and would bring in both the Denver and Salt Lake markets. However, I doubt any Big XII team wants to leave — or if the Pac-10 wants to make invitations only to be rejected.

Outside of those Big XII schools, the numbers below will show that among the national (not just Western) options for non-BCS teams:

BYU and Utah rank first and third for top 25 football finishes;

Rank first and second for football attendance;

Are classified by Carnegie as 'research schools' with Utah having 'very high research activity';

Bring new viewers within and outside the Pac-10 market;

Have solid athletic budgets (ranked second and sixth);

Have well-rounded athletic programs (with the second and fifth-highest men's basketball attendance);

And maintain the rivalry pairing the conference is built on. Short of getting a Big XII team to defect, BYU and Utah are the best options. Have a look at the numbers:
Number of football seasons ranked in top 25
It's pretty hard to compare teams who play in completely different conferences. How does one guess how well Boise's 2006 team or BYU's 1996 team would play if they were in the Pac-10? You can't.

I have collected the number of times each program has finished the season nationally ranked in the top 25 of the AP or coaches poll. By using only national numbers, I think it's a pretty good gauge of a team's football reputation (i.e. BYU = pretty good. Nevada schools = nonexistent).


Number of football seasons ranked in top 25
Pac-10---------- Non-BCS--------------- Big XII
USC: 45--------- BYU: 15 --------------- Texas: 85.8
UCLA: 32 --------TCU: 13---------------- A&M: 79.0
UW: 24 ---------- Utah: 4 --------------Colorado: 48.2
ASU: 19 ----------Boise St.: 4
Stanford: 15------ SDSU: 4
Cal: 14----------- Hawaii: 3
WSU: 11------------- East Carolina: 3
Oregon State: 10------ Fresno: 3
Oregon: 9------------- Southern Miss: 3
Zona: 7--------------- CSU: 3
----------------------- Memphis: 1
---------------------- Central Florida:0
---------------------- UNLV: 0
----------------------- UNR: 0



Average football attendance, 2006 and 2007 (in thousands)
A second gauge of football power is how many people can you get to your games. This is important not only in terms of success, but marketability as well. The more people who watch the games live probably translates to more people who watch the games on TV.

While they do consistently sellout their stadium, the Pac-10 school with the lowest total attendance is in Pullman, WA with 33,000. The next lowest is Stanford with 40,000.


Average football attendance, 2006 and 2007 (in thousands)
Pac-10-------------- Non-BCS-------------------- Big XII
USC: 89.4----------- BYU: 62.5----------------- Texas: 85.8
UCLA: 70.6---------- Utah: 42.9----------------- A&M: 79.0
Cal: 63.7 ------------Hawaii: 40.0 ---------------- Colorado: 48.2
UW: 62.6----------- East Carolina: 39.3
ASU: 58.7---------- Fresno: 37.4
Oregon: 58.6------- Central Florida: 37.1
Zona: 53.9 ---------Memphis: 31.0
Oregon State: 41.1 -----TCU: 30.9
Stanford: 40.5---------- Boise St: 30.3
WSU: 33.3 --------------SDSU: 28.5
------------------------- Southern Miss: 27.8
--------------------------- UNLV: 24.2
-------------------------- CSU: 22.9
------------------------UNR: 16.9



Academics
Next is the much-ballyhooed 'research institution' problem. It is widely reported that the Pac-10 will only invite a fellow research school to its ranks. It looks to me like the way the Carnegie Foundation distinguishes research schools is by the number of doctoral programs the school has.

Twenty or more of these programs (JD, MD, PharmD, DPT, etc.) gets you in the Very High research club. Less than 20 gets you in the High Research Club. Some schools on the list have very few or no Doctoral programs.

In the Pac-10, Stanford, USC, Arizona, UCLA, Cal, UW, Oregon State, ASU, Oregon, and WSU are all "Research Universities with Very High Research Activity."

Among the non-BCS schools, only Utah, Hawaii, and Colorado State are "Research Universities with Very High Research Activity."

BYU, SDSU, UNLV, UNR, UCF, Memphis, and Southern Miss are "Research Universities with High Research Activity."

TCU and East Carolina have the Doctoral Research label for some research, while Boise State and Fresno have no Doctoral Research programs and only award Masters Degrees.

All of the Big XII schools are "Research Universities with Very High Research Activity."

Now, none of this makes any comparison about the undergraduate academic quality of any of these schools. It's not a matter of average GPA coming in or the number of transfer students going out; it's not even a matter of how good the Doctoral programs that exist are.

It's only a matter of how many Doctoral programs a given school offers. Pac-10 schools have more than 20. BYU has less than 20, but it is still considered by Carnegie to be a "Research University."


Market ranking
While it's nice to talk about football and academics, only three things drove the Big Eight to raid the SWC, or the ACC to raid the Big East: market size, ratings, and money.

Obviously, some considerations need to be taken into account. Some colleges are in major metro areas (SDSU) but have less than stellar attendance and probably less than stellar ratings that go with them.

Other schools are in smaller areas (Oregon) but have a good national reputation and deliver good ratings in a nearby market.

One other caveat often overlooked about BYU is the number of Mormons in existing Pac-10 markets. In 2006, California had 750,000, Arizona had 361,000, Oregon had 143,000, and Washington had 248,000 Mormons for a total of 1.5 million Mormons within the Pac-10 footprint. That's equivalent to the population of Phoenix.

Now, many of them are certainly already fans of their local teams, but looking at the number of students and football players who come to BYU from Pac-10 states, there are many BYU fans out there as well.

Even without considering BYU fans already living in Pac-10 markets, BYU and Utah are near the top of the list and command the market they are in.


Market ranking
Pac-10----------- Non-BCS----------------- Big XII
USC: 1----------- TCU: 4 --------Texas: 4 (Dallas), 42 (Austin)
UCLA: 1--------- SDSU: 17-------- A&M: 4 (Dallas), 243 (College Station)
Cal: 4----------- BYU: 31---------- Colorado: 22 (Denver-Boulder)
Stanford: 4----- Utah: 31
UW: 14--------- UNLV: 33
ASU: 15-------- Central Florida: 34
Oregon: 23 (Portland), 148 (Eugene)---- Memphis: 49
Oregon State: 23 (Portland), 148 (Corvallis) -----Hawaii: 64
Zona: 61 --------Fresno: 66
WSU: 92 (Spokane)----- East Carolina: 89
---------------- Boise St.: 102
-------------------- CSU: 123
-------------------- UNR: 124
-------------------- Southern Miss: 227



Athletic department budget (in millions)
Finally, here are two gauges of overall athletic commitment. This is a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg problem.

Many of the non-BCS schools would surely have larger budgets if they got a bigger slice of the BCS pie. Any school invited to the Pac-10 would be able to upgrade (much like Louisville, Cincinnati, and Connecticut have done in the Big East). However, this list does show what these schools have been able to build without the BCS dollars.


Athletic department budget (in millions)
Pac-10 ---------- Non-BCS ----- Big XII
USC: $76 ------- TCU: $39 ----Texas: $105
Stanford: $65 ---BYU: $32 -----A&M: $69
UCLA: $61 ------ SDSU: $31--- Colorado: $42
Cal: $60-------- Central Florida: $29
UW: $59 -------- Memphis: $29
ASU: $53 --------Utah: $26
Oregon: $50------- Hawaii: $26
Zona: $45 ---------East Carolina: $25
Oregon State: $45 ----UNLV: $25
WSU: $31 --------- Fresno: $25
------------------ Boise St: $22
------------------- CSU: $19
----------------- UNR: $19
---------------- Southern Miss: $16



Basketball attendance, 2007 (in thousands)
Similar to the look at athletic budgets, this is a gauge of general athletic power. Schools like Boise State and TCU have developed solid football programs, but how is the rest of the program?


Basketball attendance, 2007 (in thousands)
Pac-10-------------- Non-BCS-------------- Big XII
Zona: 14.2--------- Memphis: 14.5------- Texas: 12.9
UCLA: 10.4--------- BYU: 12.0------------ A&M: 9.8
UW: 9.9------------ Fresno: 11.7-------- Colorado: 3.3
Cal: 8.4------------ UNLV: 11.3
Oregon: 8.4-------- Utah: 9.5
WSU: 7.1---------- UNR: 8.9
Stanford: 7.0------ SDSU: 7.8
ASU: 6.9---------- Hawaii: 6.4
USC: 5.7---------- CSU: 4.6
Oregon State: 5.1-- East Carolina: 4.5
------------------- Boise St: 4.3
------------------- TCU: 3.7
---------------- Southern Miss: 3.4
----------------- Central Florida: 2.7



Rivalries
Finally, any pair of schools invited into the Pac-10 probably should continue the pattern of sets of geographic and reciprocal rivals. Of the Western schools, only BYU/Utah and UNLV/UNR can do this.

After all the numbers, it should be pretty obvious that BYU and Utah bring significantly more to the table than the Nevada schools.

Among the others, Hawaii has several �rivals': Fresno State, Boise State, and BYU, but only from conference play.

Boise's geographic rival is University of Idaho, but their jump to I-A football hasn't gone as smoothly.

Colorado and Colorado State could develop into the kind of rivalry that the Pac-10 is looking for, but Colorado probably considers Nebraska its biggest rival rather than the Rams.

So, those are the numbers. To wrap up, if BYU and Utah are invited, the conference could be split in a way that gives all schools access to the Southern California market as well as accenting the conference's rivalries.

University Division

Washington, Oregon, Cal, UCLA, Arizona, Utah

State Division

WSU, OSU, Stanford, USC, ASU, BYU

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/82916...on-options

Nice find. The possibilities are definitely interesting. I don't think the PAC-10 will expand anytime soon though. To me, the hurdles seem even greater than with the Big Ten, which has been at the odd 11 number for more than a decade.

The PAC-10 already has the west coast market pretty much sealed up for itself. Two new schools would have to bring substantial markets to be able to offset the extras mouths. Other than the Texas schools I'm not entirely convinced anyone could do it (and I don't think they'll leave the Big XII unless it is imploding). Plus there is the issue of schools not wanting to visit California less and so on. The article does address these issues, but I think it underestimates how big of a stumbling block they would be.

I really hope they remain at 10. To me they handle their schedule the best of any of the BCS conferences. The Big 12, SEC, and ACC have unbalanced schedules and a championship game that might or might not put the best two teams against each other (and which once put a previously unranked Florida State into a BCS game). The Big Ten teams miss 2 conference opponents, leaving some very unbalanced schedules and the possibility for 2 undefeated teams (as in 2002 with Ohio State and Iowa). The Big East is 2nd best in this regard, but only having 7 conference games is too few. If it expands to 9, it will be the best in my mind since it will be round robin with 4 home and 4 road games.

If the pac-10 or the Big-11 ever do expand to twelve teams all hell will break loose. I kinda hope it happens, just to see what does happens.

SO, you're a research institution in your own right. Great work!

Could add Omni and some others as well to the designated very high research activity...

Alot of analyes for a no brainer.
If Pac-10 expanded with BYU & Utah, TV money would be about the same.
Travell cost would go down, Atten would go up. More bowls & BB bids with less
conf games. BB tourn would do better & championship game brings in money.
Pac-10 expanded would help them, but if they want B-10 money. Look for merger
with B-12

WHO CARES! They're clear on the other side of the country.

BYU will never be in any serious conversation regarding PAC 10 expansion. There is no way Stanford, CAL, etc., is going to associate with it period.

templefootballfan Wrote:Alot of analyes for a no brainer.
If Pac-10 expanded with BYU & Utah, TV money would be about the same.
Travell cost would go down, Atten would go up. More bowls & BB bids with less
conf games. BB tourn would do better & championship game brings in money.
Pac-10 expanded would help them, but if they want B-10 money. Look for merger
with B-12

Spills coffee. Did you mention merger with Big 12. Am I illiterate. Did I read that part wrong. I was agreeing with you until I read that. A Big 12-Pac 10 merger won't happen. I have a better chance of watching the Superbowl with the dish network from Mars than a merger between those conferences.

But I agree with Bitcruncher. They are on the wrong coast so why am I in this thread.

WacoBearcat Wrote:BYU will never be in any serious conversation regarding PAC 10 expansion. There is no way Stanford, CAL, etc., is going to associate with it period.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Correct answer!

Cheers,
Neil

hawghiggs Wrote:If the pac-10 or the Big-11 ever do expand to twelve teams all hell will break loose. I kinda hope it happens, just to see what does happens.

Why do people always say that? They act like the Pac-10 or Big Ten expansion = everybody else expanding to 14 or 16 or something.

A better question would be who the Big Ten is looking at for #12????????

I just don't beleive the pac-10 would have it's sights set on utah and Byu. I think it would look to colorado and someone else. the big11 and the pac10 have been join at the hip for years and if one thought expanding was a good idea that the other probably would also. the big11 would look to Nebraska,mizzou,or NotreDame(won't happen)and that would leave the big12 two teams short. They would try and expand(Arkansas won't happen) so what then. do texas and texas a@m try to get in the SEC or does Texas go it alone and try to get in the pac10. I just think there would be alot of craziness going on.

hawghiggs Wrote:I just don't beleive the pac-10 would have it's sights set on utah and Byu. I think it would look to colorado and someone else. the big11 and the pac10 have been join at the hip for years and if one thought expanding was a good idea that the other probably would also. the big11 would look to Nebraska,mizzou,or NotreDame(won't happen)and that would leave the big12 two teams short. They would try and expand(Arkansas won't happen) so what then. do texas and texas a@m try to get in the SEC or does Texas go it alone and try to get in the pac10. I just think there would be alot of craziness going on.

There is alot of crazy scenario's that could affect the whole realignment scheme.

1 would be if Colorodo and Texas go to the Pac 10., which I don't see happening. Texas and Oklahoma formed a nice intence rivalry and I don't see those 2 teams ever being seperated anytime soon and Texas A n M and Texas will never be seperated unless A n M goes SEC which is even more impossible.

2 Rutgers goes to the Big 10(12). The BIG 10 has NYC, ACC has Boston and Philadelphia is vacant to the Big East. Where will the Big East find a market to replace the lost markets. Memphis is a viable option. Temple fills Philly but is that really enough when Temple isn't a competive program in football.

3 The all hell breaks loose scenario. Colorado and Colorodo St go to the Pac 10. Nebreska or Missouri or Iowa St goes to the Big 10. Big 12 adds Memphis and Arkansas. Where does the SEC adds its 12th member. Do they stay at 11, I doubt it. Do they add Louisville or WVU from the Big East? Do they steal FSU or Miami or Georgia Tech or even bring back Clemson. Lets say they add WVU. After Memphis goes Big 12(remember this is a scenerio not real life) who would be a viable replacement for WVU. But if they take an ACC school. Would the ACC then raid the Big East for a Rutgers or Pitt or Syracuse. Would they want to try the Championship game. Who knows.

Most of this will never happen and is just us fans bringing up spectulation. Its fun to talk about during the off season. But again these talks is more reason to have a All Sports Conference but its most likely not going to happen anytime soon. so and have a wonderful day.

hawghiggs Wrote:I just don't beleive the pac-10 would have it's sights set on utah and Byu. I think it would look to colorado and someone else. the big11 and the pac10 have been join at the hip for years and if one thought expanding was a good idea that the other probably would also. the big11 would look to Nebraska,mizzou,or NotreDame(won't happen)and that would leave the big12 two teams short. They would try and expand(Arkansas won't happen) so what then. do texas and texas a@m try to get in the SEC or does Texas go it alone and try to get in the pac10. I just think there would be alot of craziness going on.

The only 2 schools that make financial and academic sense for Pac10 expansion is Texas and Texas A & M. Do I think it will happen? No. In many ways, the Big East and Pac10 share the same difficulties with expansion.

bitcruncher Wrote:WHO CARES! They're clear on the other side of the country.

they are all east of the pacific.. they could work.. make it the all new real real big big east.

The main stumbling block for PAC Ten expansion is that the schools have to be up to the conference's academic standards; most of the PAC Ten are regularly USNews Tier One but much more importantly, 7 of 10 Pac Ten schools are AAU (UC-Berkely, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon and Arizona) [All 11 Big Ten schools are AAU]. Of the expansion canidates listed, only Colorado-Boulder, Texas and Texas A&M are AAU members. The PAC-Ten is known for its value of academics; AAU membership is given to only the most prestigious schools. You might also want to look into each school's endowment, a good gauge of private contributions to the school.

I still think the most logical PAC Ten canidates are UT and UT A&M. They bring the full package: Academic excellence, On the Field success, and markets that make thier addition more than worth it. Texas and A&M would need incentive to leave the Big Twelve. Would the increased revenue of a future PAC-Ten [or SEC] television network doubled with better acadmeic or competitive standards be enough for them to leave? The SEC and PAC Ten offer larger markets to the Texas giants than the Old big 8 does.

That would be my best guess at the next round of conference realignment: a pact between the Texas schools of the Big 12 and the poweful football giants of the SEC. The Texas schools would see the SEC's profitible television network and bigger markets [such as Nashville, Lexington, Atlanta, and Florida] and jump on the opportunity to leave behind underachieving schools such as Kansas State and Oklahoma State, while the SEC would love to expand into Texas even if it meant cutting some of the more traditional members.

SEC East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn
SEC West: Oklahoma, Missouri/Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Louisiana State

This would be the dominant conference in the college football landscape; miles ahead of any competition. It could happen sooner than you think.

TheLurker Wrote:The main stumbling block for PAC Ten expansion is that the schools have to be up to the conference's academic standards; most of the PAC Ten are regularly USNews Tier One but much more importantly, 7 of 10 Pac Ten schools are AAU (UC-Berkely, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon and Arizona) [All 11 Big Ten schools are AAU]. Of the expansion canidates listed, only Colorado-Boulder, Texas and Texas A&M are AAU members. The PAC-Ten is known for its value of academics; AAU membership is given to only the most prestigious schools. You might also want to look into each school's endowment, a good gauge of private contributions to the school.

I still think the most logical PAC Ten canidates are UT and UT A&M. They bring the full package: Academic excellence, On the Field success, and markets that make thier addition more than worth it. Texas and A&M would need incentive to leave the Big Twelve. Would the increased revenue of a future PAC-Ten [or SEC] television network doubled with better acadmeic or competitive standards be enough for them to leave? The SEC and PAC Ten offer larger markets to the Texas giants than the Old big 8 does.

That would be my best guess at the next round of conference realignment: a pact between the Texas schools of the Big 12 and the poweful football giants of the SEC. The Texas schools would see the SEC's profitible television network and bigger markets [such as Nashville, Lexington, Atlanta, and Florida] and jump on the opportunity to leave behind underachieving schools such as Kansas State and Oklahoma State, while the SEC would love to expand into Texas even if it meant cutting some of the more traditional members.

SEC East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn
SEC West: Oklahoma, Missouri/Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Louisiana State

This would be the dominant conference in the college football landscape; miles ahead of any competition. It could happen sooner than you think.

Good post in the first couple of paragraphs. I think the SEC does not meet the academic standards for Texas, and now likely even, A&M (although at one point in time that wasn't a huge concern for the Aggies).

I do think the new SEC consortium was done in part to make itself more attractive from an academic standpoint.

In any case, I think the next five years is going to be interesting. Assuming the Mayans were incorrect, and the world does not end in December of 2012.

Cheers,
Neil

TheLurker Wrote:SEC East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn
SEC West: Oklahoma, Missouri/Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Louisiana State

This would be the dominant conference in the college football landscape; miles ahead of any competition. It could happen sooner than you think.

My ? for you Lurker is where would Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mississippi St end up. Lets say most end up in a Post Big East Split

Appalation(can't spell that word) Conference

South

Kentucky
South Carolina
Ole Miss
South Fla
Louisville
Memphis

North

WVU
Cincinnatti
Pitt
Rutgers
Syracuse
Uconn

what about vandy there spending a lot of money to improve.

The writer of the original article must live in Utah or be a BYU supporter.