Will Never Happen
Sunday, July 2, 2006 at 10:49PM I know it's the offseason, but this is nonsense: Pac-10 expansion (bread + crumbs).
1)If the Pac-10 wanted to expand, it would have done so long ago.
It hasn't done so because it is primarily an academic and non-football athletic conference. It bills itself the "Conference of Champions" and for good reason. The bulk of its non-football athletic teams are competing for athletic championships. The three all-time leaders in NCAA overall team titles are UCLA, USC and Stanford and they're ahead of anyone else by a mile.
It also has three academic powerhouses in Stanford, California and UCLA and two near-powerhouses in USC and Washington. Any new faces to the mix will have to look a lot more like these guys than say, the University of Arizona.
2)Any of several possible pairs of teams could have entered long ago in maintaining the Pac-10's unique regional pairings (USC and UCLA, Stanford and Cal, Washington and Washington State, etc.). Think Utah and BYU, Utah and Utah State, BYU and Utah State, San Jose State and Fresno State etc. etc. etc.
It's never happened.
3)The Pac-10 is stubborn. It is the only major conference not to speak up with plans for its own television network when a flurry of those announcements went out last week. It has held to its ten-team unity and I doubt it sees any compelling reason not to. Remember this is the conference that had to be financially blackmailed, kicking-and-screaming, to join the BCS, thus sacrificing its and the Big Ten's exclusive ties to America's greatest bowl tradition (the Rose Bowl) and the financial windfall it provided for the conference.
Maybe someday the Pac-10 will cave to the almighty dollar (many of us hope that day never comes) and add two members, do the whole two-division and sell its soul. But that day is not today, nor is there any scent in the air to suggest otherwise.
Entering Big 12, SEC and ACC territory
Getting back to the original argument: Colorado is not a natural fit for the Pac-10. Nor is Utah, or BYU or Colorado State or any similar teams in the non-Pacific American west. I don't consider any of them to have prestigious academic credentials (strike one) or overall athletic depth beyond football (big strike two).
I don't see the Pac-10 seeking those opportunities.
Blogs, Conferences, Teams 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (8)
Of course, Texas wasn't interested in doing that. While the Pac 10 -would- have taken Texas, back then Texas insisted on bringing its stupid baggage around with it (Texas A&M, Baylor, Tech), because the politicians were running the show. (For more on this see: http://www.burntorangenation.com/story/2006/6/11/144322/440)
Anyway, while joining the Big 12 was good for Texas sports, joining the Pac 10 was desirable to other contingencies at Texas.
Cheap shot, and false. The UofA is an excellent school.
Arizona State, on the other hand...
I don't think it's a cheap shot. I had two friends go through school there. One is quite brilliant and the other was admitted with a 1.9 GPA (wish I was joking). They've both extensively related their academic experiences there to me. It's not a joke school, but just not a great one either and certainly nowhere that elevated league of the five mentioned.
Arizona did meet its $1 billion fundraising effort a few years ago and that will certainly pay academic dividends but it's by no means an academic powerhouse.
After posting I remembered that AZ was penalized by the NCAA for their poor graduation rates amongst athletes...lol. Guess growing up in Tucson has made me a bit defensive of the school even if I didn't go there.
I do agree with your overall point, however. No way does the Pac10 admit more schools.
Regarding expansion, I say leave the Pac 10 how it is. I like the natural rivalries, the fact that every team plays every other team (starting soon, at least) and that they don't whore themselves out for more money. And the conference has the national championships (in ALL sports) to show how great it is, as it is.
Certainly these are not great numbers relative to the majority of the conference, but if you operate under the assumption that their inclusion in an expanded Pac 10 will only help their recruiting in all sports (particularly in CA), one could probably assume that they'd do at least as well as the Arizona schools have done.
As far as academics, I know BYU is a joke, although I think Utah is a little more prestigious. That said, I think you are right, the Pac 10 will pass on extending membership to either.
Oregon State was probably a throw-in at the time (although they did have a Heisman winner at one point). And they just won the national championship in baseball.
I have a LOT of issues with the Sears Cup rankings, anyway. It factors in 20 sports teams last I checked, and I'm not sure many schools even field 20 teams. It also over-rewards schools that participate in limited sports like Fencing and Rhythmic Gymnastics etc.
Stanford fields something like 30 sports, but they are by far the exception and can win by just sacrificing a lot of sports like football that finish low but are buttressed by high-scoring elsewhere, yet few other schools have that opportunity.
It's a bit of a scam in my view.