Deseret News | Pac-10 will snub BYU, Utah

Reader comments
Dick Harmon: Pac-10 will snub BYU, Utah

324 comments | Read story

Re: Anonymous | 12:50 p.m. | 1:37 p.m. July 7, 2008

The joke is on you!

The dark days ended in 2005 when Bronco took over the program.

BYU is already well on its way to returning to its glory days.

The Real Deal | 1:42 p.m. July 7, 2008

Both byu and utah fans need to get over yourselves. You feel you have had success because you play against cupcakes at least 9 times a year in football. The fact of the matter is that the Pac-10 is very much established in many sports and the big money makes it complete. USC has Football, UCLA and Arizona have basketball, Oregon has track (the most storied track program in the world), Washington used to have it in football, Oregon State has baseball, WSU, ASU, CAL, and Stanford are just competitive in different areas. The Pac-10 is set, so get over it. No one wants you!!!!!!

Re: The Real Deal | 1:55 p.m. July 7, 2008

The fact is BYU and Utah have much to offer and would be a tremendous boost to the PAC-10 and, if they are smart, they will invite BYU before the Big-12 gets around to it.

BYU, btw, has a very well-respected Track program with many athletes who have also competed, and won, in the Olympics.

Comments continue below

BYUTAH | 1:58 p.m. July 7, 2008

The name above may hurt some eyes but as a graduate from both schools its is actually nice seeing the Ute/Coug connection being united on something.
As far as being deserving, the state of Utah is the largest state in the country that does not have a BCS school. I went to Pullman, WA to see the Utes beat those cougars and found it interesting and fortunate for WSU that they are big time PAC 10 and not WAC member Idaho that is 10 miles away.
As far as comparing the performance of the two schools vs PAC 10, even that is not as valid considering the millions of dollars those schools get to use toward upgrading their programs; facilities, coaches, etc. BYUTAH loses a lot of recruits based on conference afiliation.

Right | 2:05 p.m. July 7, 2008

Is that why provo is known as TrackTown, USA. Oh wait, thats Eugene, Oregon where they just got done hosting the US Olympic Trials.

Hey Devil fan | 2:05 p.m. July 7, 2008

why don't you do everyone a favor and stay away from D-News and read the Arizona Repugnant. We don't need more trolls in here. Don't berate the Utes or Kewgs. Your pathetic Scum Devils would get smoked by Utah and byU. I have seen you guys play and your QB spends more time on the ground than on his feet. BJ and Max Hall are both better than Rudy carpenter.

Interested? | 2:06 p.m. July 7, 2008

There is no longer any such animal as a "Research I University."
From Wikipedia, "Research I university was a category used by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education to indicate those universities in the United States which received the highest amounts of Federal science research funding." It had nothing whatsoever to do with the adademic/teaching quality of a school.

"The Carnegie Foundation has updated this terminology noting:

Doctorate-granting Universities. With this edition, doctorate-granting institutions are once again differentiated based on an explicit measure of research activity. We now use a multi-measure index rather than the single measure of federal funding used in previous editions [...] Using the new methodology, we have identified three categories of doctorate-granting institutions. Because of these changes, the new categories are not comparable to those previously used (Research I & II and Doctoral I & II; and Doctoral/Researchï¿½Extensive and Intensive).[1]

References
^ Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Basic Classification Description. Retrieved on 2007-11-25.

See also
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education"

The Facts- Take it or Leave it | 2:14 p.m. July 7, 2008

We all know that the old fogie that is Tom Hansen is retiring, which has caused quite a stir. But what many people fail to grasp is that the commissioner always answers to the presidents of the institutions. As an Oregon grad, I have come to know Dave Frohnmayer as a person and as an administrator. He is the President of the University of Oregon and also stands as the Committee Chair over all of the Pac-10 Presidents. He is a just guy who has served in such capacities as the Oregon Attorney General, as well as the house of representatives. He is the guy who has the final say concerning a Pac-10 expansion. It would be him who would have to sway other presidents into believing expansion is a good thing. Frankly, I don't see that happening. I don't see the Big 12 expanding to 14 either.

top hero | 2:15 p.m. July 7, 2008

Why would it not be about money? Sounds like the Pac-10 is protecting something important? Why wouldn't they and why are they being condemned for it? Oh, because you think you deserve it. Of course, BYU and even Utah have a lot to offer but that doesn't mean it's more than they already have.

Bob Wilson | 2:18 p.m. July 7, 2008

Washington State and Oregon State are more highly respected schools academically than BYU for sure. Utah would be close academically and research-wise, but there is no up-side for Pac-10 expansion at this time.

Bob Wilson
Pullman, Washington

Y Fan | 2:23 p.m. July 7, 2008

I don't want BYU or Utah to join the PAC10.. I just want them to destroy teams from that conference whenever given the opportunity... Yup, for the first time in my life I am going to cheer for the Utes this year... TWICE!! against Michigan and Oregon State. Teams from the MWC need to step up and start beating the teams from the so-called major conferences. Utah has done pretty well at this the past few years, and the Y have their share of wins as well but not consistently enough. the saying goes "if you can't beat them join them" well I say if you can't join them, kick their *** then!

Devil | 2:22 p.m. July 7, 2008

ASU has 136 national championships in various sports in its history. How about Utah or BYU? It is currently ranked 4th in the country for 07-08 in the Directors Cup that ranks every Universites overall sports programs. They are only behind Stan.=1, UCLA=2, Mich.=3 as one of the premier college athletic programs in the U.S. They play in the premier conference in all of college sports with the best balance and winning percentages across the board. Even with great competition they still are the 4th best overall collegiate sports program in the nation! I'd say thats a nice contribution to its conference. BYU ranking is 41rst which is descent. Ute fans you are not even in the top 50 Universities in the country for your overall sports program so what are you talking about? Why would the Pac-10 want you? What would you bring to the table? If BYU joined the conference they would rank 9th out of 11 Pac-10 schools. They are only ahead of Or. St. and Wash. St. The decision to not invite BYU or Utah to join its conference is not only financial but also because Utah can't hang and BYU isnt ready yet athletically.

POWDERHOUND00 | 2:29 p.m. July 7, 2008

Dick Harmon's main point in his article is still, by far the most valid! MONEY!!!! The PAC-10 will not include more teams unless they can insure a dramatic increase in profits. Right now, the PAC-10 receives a huge payout every year from their BCS affiliation. That money is divided between the 10 schools in the conference. Adding more schools waters down that payout and any team considered worthy of entering the conference must offset that loss and guarantee more profit. Unlike the BCS, non-BCS conferences can increase profit through expansion, hence the recent moves to expand the WAC and MWC. BYU, by virtue of its tremendous marketability (ability to make money) in athletics is the only non-BCS school that would be remotely viable (not a knock on any other school!), but IT WONï¿½T HAPPEN!! Non-BCS conferences must find ways to make their own way and consistently crashing BCS bowls is a good place to start.

a random John | 2:33 p.m. July 7, 2008

Utah would be an OK fit in the PAC 10, but clearly this would be a package deal and there is no way they are going to take BYU. Part of this is due to (believe it or not) to the LDS priesthood ban that was lifted in 1978. In the 1970s Stanford boycotted BYU and though the boycott was formally lifted a long time ago Stanford didn't play the Y in football until just recently. There is a feeling that close ties to BYU are dangerous because BYU is liable to do something embarrassing at any moment on the academic freedom front.

Add to this the fact that BYU is not a research university and you've got a solid case for rejecting them from the league.

Dumb ol' Cronies | 2:32 p.m. July 7, 2008

A true college football national championship decided on the field through a 16-team playoff is being held hostage by the dumb old Rose Bowl cronies of the PAC-10/Big Ten who are too old and crotchety to realize how big, how much money, and how much excitement would be generated by having a true national championship tournament.

The concept that sharing a much bigger pie with everyone, meaning that they would actually make more money than they are now, is more than their tiny, self-absorbed brains can handle.

The same thinking that has kept the PAC-10 from taking advantage of an opportunity to expand by inviting two very good universities to join their conference.

To Bob: | 2:49 p.m. July 7, 2008

Yes, you need to remember that WSU has been voted in the top 10 of party schools in the nation. Academically, they're not ranked nearly as high.

RE: Pac10 Fanatics | 2:53 p.m. July 7, 2008

You are so dense and short sighted. The argument that BYU and Utah wouldn't be able to compete in the Pac 10 is so stupid it is ridiculous. If BYU and Utah are regularly beating PAC 10 teams now what do you think will happen when they join the PAC 10?

The PAC 10 recruiting advantage of being in a BCS conference with a big TV deal and great bowl tie-ins will be moot. BYU and Utah have seen numerous recruits slip away for this very reason.

The fact is that if BYU and Utah entered the PAC 10 as it is today they would have a significant boost in recruiting ability. This in effect would result in a direct negative impact on teams like WSU, UW, Oregon, OSU, ASU, and Arizona that don't have a distinct reputation advantage that the 4 cali schools have.

This is a greater reason for these teams to oppose expansion than anything because this is where the real revenue impact will be for those schools. Teams like WSU, OSU and UA can barely get people to go to their games as it is. This would put their programs in severe financial trouble.

tnt | 2:53 p.m. July 7, 2008

What you all have to think about is that in every conference there are good teams and bad teams. If Vanderbilt or Kentucky came to the MWC they would most likely be considered in the top tier if they could keep the same talent they get from being in the SEC. On the other hand, BYU/Utah would be middle tier in PAC-10 football. Playing TCU, New Mexico, Air Force,, etc is not the same as playing USC, UCLA, Washington, CAL, Stanford, ASU, Arizona, etc. BYU/UT would need expectations of winning 1/2 the games. That would not be USCs expectations but it would be BYU/Utah's

MadMax | 3:01 p.m. July 7, 2008

This topic is interesting only for discussion purposes as adding byu and Utah to the PAC-10 will never happen. To those who bad mouth the Utes I say 'Give it a rest!' You only demean yourselves when you do. The Utes beat you at least as often as you beat them. Look at the overall records head to head. As for academic programs each school has strengths. The U of U is very strong in research and has had several of its faculty gain national recognition - can you say Nobel Prize.
The ultimate answer is for both the Utes and coogers to succeed in actual competition by winning games against all comers both at home and on the road. Boosters at each school need to root for their rivals when they face out of conference opponents. They should hope that all conference titles must pass through either Utah or byu. They must wish for each school to do well in NCAA events so as to raise to profile of both that school and their conference rival. They must upgrade their schedules so as to play against the BSC conferences consistanly and win those games.

GO UTES!!! and byu too!

JBH | 3:07 p.m. July 7, 2008

As an academic myself (with an ivy league Ph.D. in microbiology), I can understand a bit of snootiness, academically, from Stanford and Berkeley (Cal). These two are as good as any university in the land. As for USC and UCLA, well, certainly they're good, but their academic credentials are no better than Utah's and BYU's. I believe that BYU, for example, is more selective than either of them and the U has better research credentials in the biological sciences, as well. Perhaps UCLA and USC think that by association with Stanford and Berkeley their reputations will rise but honestly, they've got no more to crow about than many another university.

ASU fan | 3:16 p.m. July 7, 2008

ASU would easily beat Utah and BYU this year. ASU is the most underrated program in the country. Just wait, ASU will be ranked higher than BYU and Utah at the end of the year.

BYU and Utah in PAC-10 | 3:39 p.m. July 7, 2008

The reason this does not make sense is purely money the same reason Y and U want in is the same reason they will not get in. Sure in some sports they can compete but what happens in the conference tournament when they have to play on Sunday which Basketball often does. The PAC-10 is mostly a Coastal Conference and Utah should look for the Big Twelve. Baseball and Softball are not ready and I don't think Football at BYU or Utah would ever win the conference might take a few 3rd place finishes though. If the conference is split North and South then the recruits from the Southern Cal region will not go to the Washington and Oregon schools where they at least get to play in front of family on return trips close to home. PAC-10 is a power conference and all of you saying it is not should just go look at UCLA's number of National Championships 102 and growing.

Utah Utes | 3:42 p.m. July 7, 2008

We have the Basketball Brogram and football program BYWHO can only dream of. You stay awak at nights afrid of our meeting on the field and court.

BSU, find Papa Smurf and see if you can play???

BYU LOL!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

A fan | 3:48 p.m. July 7, 2008

Again, this is about more than just football. Because of that, BYU wouldn't be considered since they don't play on Sundays, while most of the PAC-10 tournaments and some regular season hoops are scheduled for Sunday and if they don't take BYU, they won't take Utah. They'll take them together or not at all. There was a recent article in Las Vegas that said the PAC 10 would be more interested in a UNLV & Nevada-Reno package than Utah-BYU.

Not Needed | 3:51 p.m. July 7, 2008

BYU and Utah don't need the PAC-10 to be successful. The BcS is living on borrowed time and will eventually fall under its own bloated, self-absorbed weight or be torn apart by a class-action lawsuit for the monopoly that it pretends not to be.

A national championship playoff is coming to college football; the PAC-10 and Big Ten will either jump aboard the bandwagon or be left behind.

The majority of fans cannot be ignored forever.

The perfect storm is coming.

Real Cougar | 4:00 p.m. July 7, 2008

BYU and Utah athletes need to take a hint from schools relegated to "no name" conferences like the Summit League. Most of the fans of these schools have given up even attempting to desire to get into a BCS conference, and so they have shifted their focus to HELPING the schools around them.

There's a thought: IMPROVE COMPETITION in the Conference in which you reside?!?!?!

If the Utes and Cougars would just get over their small town rivalry for five minutes, they would realize that the Mountain West Conference really isn't such a bad deal; and it could be a lot better, if it were to stop comparing itself to "bigger schools" after every mediocre season beating up on San Diego State and Wyoming!

So to all fans from the glorious state of Utah: Swallow your pride, Get over your monstrously huge egos, and find a way to make the conference better! Bring everyone up, and then we won't need the Pac-10 to come crawling our way!

("I have a dream... that one day, USC will ask for an invite into the MWC!")

JayCee | 4:03 p.m. July 7, 2008

BYU & Utah pretty much killed their chances of national exposure and fan loyalty AND PAC 10 membership their ill conceived MTN Network debacle.

more emberassment | 4:10 p.m. July 7, 2008

Your saying that you would rather join the BIg 12 so who cares about the PAC 10? The BIG 12 would roll the cougars in football too.
UT,A&M,OU,KU,TT etc. and in basketball and other sports. BYU fnas enough already! Stop emberassing your school,self.

Capius | 4:14 p.m. July 7, 2008

Poor BYU and Utah, being treated by the PAC-10 the same way they treat Utah State. Of course, when it happens to them, it's a crime against humanity!

That's right! | 4:15 p.m. July 7, 2008

Because really talented recruits go to lesser programs and Tv appearnences. EEEHHH MAx Hall is not better than Rudy Carpenter. Max wasn't gonna play at ASU.

when has | 4:21 p.m. July 7, 2008

BYU ever spanked a top 25 team? WHEN? They don't spank anybody and their schedule is so weak.

Sunday | 4:26 p.m. July 7, 2008

One of the many reasons BYU will not get into the PAC 10 is because of its refusal to play on Sunday. It simple wouldn't work with many of the minor sports. BYU should accept and be happy with what they have, and quit dreaming unrealistically of moving up.

Clark Larsen | 4:33 p.m. July 7, 2008

To "The Real Deal - 1:42"

You know the real reason why the PAC-10 doesn't want BYU and Utah? I think you do. FEAR!

Fear that schools from little ole' Utah will improve and continually compete at your level. Fear that another school from little ole' Utah will be able to win a national championship against the high and mighty schools of the west coast.

We BYU and Utah fans read the Internet too. We know how many of the national commentators were disgusted when Ty Detmer won the Heisman Trophy, and when Alex Smith was drafted #1 by the 49ers. We know how all of you hate seeing the underdogs beat your precious big shot colleges. And we also know how much you hate playing by the rules.

One example of this is the University of Oregon, who recently hired a wealthy booster, with no college degree, as its new athletic director. Talk about putting the FOX in charge of the HEN HOUSE!

Face it! Big schools DON'T want to play by the rules, they DON'T want to share the $$$$, and they DO want to keep everyone thinking, they and only they, know how to play sports.

Rogew Tew | 4:38 p.m. July 7, 2008

As much a people may think otherwise a major issue for BYU is that they are not a tier one research shcool - Utah is (USU is also). All of the schools in the PAC 10 are tier one research schools. This status will also never change at BYU given their restrictions on federal research funding. The simple truth is the decisions on expansion are made by university presidents and these facts are major considerations - particularly in light of the fact that there is no real upside for the PAC 10 to add either Utah or BYU. This may be difficult for Y fans to accept (I am an alumnus) but the Y simply is limited in its conference options.

BSU and BYU | 4:41 p.m. July 7, 2008

They said "No, don't go to division 1 Boise State, you will just be the bottom dwellers of the WAC instead of the big boys in the Big SKY conf (div II)."

The nay sayers were WRONG! Put the big fish in the big pond and see who emerges as the Top Dog! BSU has won more division one football games in the last 6 years than all but 3 teams (Florida, LSU and Texas).

My point is...BYU in the PAC 10 may have a rough road for a year or two, but they will start getting more money, better recruits and bigger prizes for winning bigger games. How many great LDS recruits have opted for BCS schools so that their path to professional sports is made much clearer?

If the invite ever came, we would be fools not to jump in the "big pond" of the PAC 10.

Of course! | 4:44 p.m. July 7, 2008

Of course BYU would fit perfectly in the Pac-10. Utah i am not so sure on.... The reason for BYU is that these last 2 years BYU has beaten 2 Pac-10 teams. Including a 36-6 victory over Oregon. Last season BYU beats UCLA 17-16. That should be proof enough that they can play against Pac-10 teams!

Utah last season however could not even get a victory over a lower Pac-10 school oregon state!

Devil | 4:49 p.m. July 7, 2008

ASUï¿½s quarterback might spend more time on his back than on his feet but your Ute boys spend more time in the doctorï¿½s office than between the painted lines. How many injuries did you have last year? Our QB has guts and can take a hit. The difference between our quarterbacks is that ours gets up after he is hit and yours gets carried away on a stretcher and spends his season calling in plays to your terrible backups. I can't wait for 8/30 when the average Michigan Wolverines crush you and your fragile BJ breaks a nail and is out for the season (again). Ute fans spare me the sob story and prove your elite and then youï¿½ll get yours. BYU at least you are respectable. Well good look in your national title hunt this year Utes, oh sorry you are already out of the race! When you post a 7-5 record this year after losing to Mich., A.F., O.S., TCU and BYU and go to the lucky charms or marshmallow bowl (where you belong) hopefully you will stop crying over how itï¿½s all about the money when the reality is that your football team sucks! Best wishes- ï¿½Devilï¿½

Re: Of course! | 4:57 p.m. July 7, 2008

We did lose to OSU after Johnson and Asiata were injured, but remember how we stomped UCLA after they beat BYU, and we beat a mediocre Louisville team on the road that was comparable to the Tulsa team that beat you. Utah didn't have the best season, but neither did BYU. This year will be different, for Utah at least, BYU will probably finish with 3 loses, Washington, Utah , and their perennial bowl loss (with the exception of last years UCLA rematch, GO COUGS! you finally got one!)

Football is King | 5:03 p.m. July 7, 2008

In most every instance, football supplies the revenue to create winning organizations in other team sports. Very rarely do we see a basketball school fund the football program. Duke, Indiana and a few others are the exception. If you look at schools like Utah State, New Mexico and New Mexico State all have decent programs in hoops but their football teams struggle at the gate and on the field.

With that said, it would make sense to put together a strong football conference with the leftovers. Make it a requirement to fill at least 40,000 seats, have strong teams or bring something of value to the league. Utah, BYU, Fresno and Air Force all fill the requirement. Boise State is adding to their stadium. Hawaii is Hawaii. Everyone recruits in Hawaii and they have good teams. San Diego State is in California and would be a good rival for Fresno. The other unknowns are TCU with poor attendance, New Mexico with a small stadium and lackluster attendance, UNLV with their small stadium and poor attendance, UTEP is improving.

It would allow a better football conference and we wouldn't have to worry about being shut out.

coterie | 5:09 p.m. July 7, 2008

As far as thinking they are in the Ivy league category.. Stanford and Cal, maybe... but not USC or UCLA.... well maybe UCLA... in some things.....

Re: To "former Texan" | 12:17 | 5:12 p.m. July 7, 2008

Did you hear A RUMOR ABOUT A.D. Felberg and/or Pres. Bateman suggesting BYU would have been their pick for admission into the Big XII were it not for Gov. Richards and Baylor, or did you ACTUALLY HEAR IT from THEM? If the latter, then YES they were lying. It was to bad for TCU.

Sun Devil 4 ever | 5:24 p.m. July 7, 2008

There is NO WAY you can compare BYU with ASU in academics
ASU is classified as a Research 1 university (like MIT, Harvard, UCLA, Stanford, etc). Every year the Engineering and Education programs are in the top 20 best programs in the US. Not to mention the Business college programs are classified always top 10 in the US too.
The past few years ASU got more top academic scholarships nationwide than the likes of the Ivy League schools including Harvard, even more than Stanford (Pac-10 school).
Sorry, but BYU is more like our Mesa Community College (MCC) compared with ASU.

Texas Cougar | 5:30 p.m. July 7, 2008

"When Has"- So...what you're saying is that, because BYU hasn't beat a top 25 opponent in the last year, neither BYU nor Utah shouldn't be in the Pac-10? That sounds like a pretty lame argument (and I'm a BYU fan...I've heard some pretty lame arguments).

Compare BYU and Utah's combined record against ranked opponents to Oregon St. and Washington St.'s record against ranked opponents over the last 20 years (giving an extra bonus point to Oregon St. and BYU for each beating the number one team in the nation once during that time). I don't have the time to look it up, but if someone does, please post it and let us know. My guess would be that, percentage-wise, BYU and Utah have faired much better against top 25 opponents than half of the teams in the Pac-10.

Part of the problem with using "when has"'s argument is that top 25 teams often don't play BYU and Utah, because both have (at different times) been known to be far better than most mid-majors. Its a lose-lose for a good BCS school to play a good mid-major: You win...you were supposed to. You lose...it looks awful.

Academics | 5:57 p.m. July 7, 2008

Oregon St., Washington St., Mesa Community College...come on what is wrong with PAC 10 fans that they cannot be intellectually honest. Yes, I believe ASU is better than BYU academically, but only marginally. BYU is clearly better than Oregon St. and Washington St. academically despite what that Pullman fan said earlier. As for Mesa Community College (Sun Devil 4 ever), come on, don't make yourself look stupid.

Re: Of course! | 6:06 p.m. July 7, 2008

Last year, Oregon St. was not a lower PAC-10 school. They finished ahead of UCLA.

Oregon St. finished 6-3 PAC-10; 9-4 overall.

UCLA finished 5-4 PAC-10; 6-7 overall.

Cincy Coug | 6:36 p.m. July 7, 2008

Here is a HUGE fact why the Pac-10 won't bring in BYU/UTAH . . . FEAR! Hold on PAC-10 fans, hear me out. The two Utah schools are all ready able to recruit top talent in a non-BC$ conference. Can you imagine what talent they will be able to get being IN a BC$ conference? They will steal some of the recruits that they normally lose for that fact. I guarantee Ben Olson would have probably come back to BYU if they were a BC$ school, What about Haloti Ngata . . . and there are countless others I am not aware of but have heard stories. Top players who wouldn't even look at them would at least give them a glance. You know it's true. Both of those schools would rise to the upper tier of the conference and the rest of the PAC-10 schools are afraid of them. I don't blame the PAC-10, why would you want to bring in a couple of schools who will quicky become better than more than half of the conference.

Dead Horse | 6:59 p.m. July 7, 2008

This has been so hashed over. The bottom line for me is, this is a "BEAT a DEAD HORSE" issue. If the PAC-10 wanted BYU and Utah they would have brought them in when they expanded with AZ and AZ St. They'er happier the way it is and upsetting their alums isn't worth the grief.
BYU/Utah get's to continue on their path of doing everything they can to win whos put in front of them and play each other in the Holy War. And turn this rivalry into a Ohio St. vs Michigan type match up.
Why not make this the elite conference? Where BCS wants to invite the whole conference rather than spliting it up again and again and again.

WHY DOES | 7:02 p.m. July 7, 2008

The PAc 10 need a boost? They are already one of the toughest conferences in the country. They don't need BYU or anyone other chump school.

Cougtucky | 7:14 p.m. July 7, 2008

Who cares about the Pac-10???? The only thing that Utah and BYU would gain is by joining their conference is a ton of $$$$$. They can keep their filthy lucre! In the Mountain West college football is still about rivalries and school spirit; things that are quickly diminishing in the messed up BC$ world. If the Pac 10 does decide to expand, then I hope they invite two other schools. Down with the B*S!

How Much? | 7:32 p.m. July 7, 2008

If the PAC-10 were to expand to 12 teams, each of the original 10 stand to lose close to $300,000/yr in annual BCS ca$h. For it to break even, the conference championship would have to net about $3.6 million. I don't know how much those conference championships go for these days, but it's not likely more than the Holiday Bowl.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.