When Utah rattled the BCS back in 2004, native Utahn Greg Hansen, a sportswriter in Pac-10 territory, floated the idea of BYU and Utah in the Pac-10. He made a good case, working as an astute observer from the front lines in Pac-10 territory.

But this issue isn't about what makes a good brief or a solid case. It's not about what makes sense or what might be fair or is simply a good idea. It has everything to do with exclusion, money, idealism, politics and a simple better-than-you-don't-need-you attitude among these presidents.

Tom Hansen and his replacement are lap dogs with muzzled barks and appointed fire plugs to frequent — nothing more.

Greg Hansen explained the Pac-10's four-part, no-expansion platform as follows: 1. We don't want to share our TV money. 2. We don't want to split up our bowl-game money. 3. We don't want to compromise our academic standards. 4. We can't realign into divisions because no one is willing to be placed in a group that doesn't include USC and UCLA.

"The academic leaders at USC, Stanford, Cal and UCLA see themselves as a coterie of Ivy League schools, West Coast division, and as long as they live, the Pac-10 will not be taking on lowbrow academic entities, not San Diego State and especially not Fresno State or UNLV," wrote Greg Hansen.

In the above edict, you can sense the Pac-10 administrative mindset.

No matter the positives Utah and BYU might bring to the table, Pac-10 warlords can't get over their own self-interests to expand. Even if doing so would mean getting a program like BYU, which has more seasons (15) ranked in the Top 25 than half the Pac-10, higher average football attendance than six Pac-10 programs, and a basketball average attendance higher than every single Pac-10 school but Arizona.

Doesn't matter.

They're not sharing.

---

E-mail: dharmon@desnews.com