CFN Daily Roundtables
 May
27
Should
the Pac 10 expand? If it adds two teams, who should they be?
-
May 18
No BCS, No Weis?
- May 19
Does 2008 Utah have a beef?
- May 20
When should preseason polls come out?
- May 21
Is
Tebow the best QB ever?
- May 22
2009's most interesting
teams
- May 25
Heisman race sleepers
- May 26
Chizik, Kiffin or Mullen?
Over the next several weeks, as part of the CFN 2009 Preview, we'll
examine some of the key questions going into the year with a
daily discussion of the big topics.
Pete
Fiutak,
CFN
Q: Are you for Pac 10 expansion? If it adds two teams, who should they be?
A:
No. Not
only should the Pac 10 not get a championship game, the SEC, ACC, and
Big 12 should ditch theirs.
They're gimmicks, they're unnecessary, and
most of all, they've been sort of dry. Oh sure, the SEC title game last
year was epic with Florida beating unbeaten and No. 1 Alabama for a spot
in the national title, and there have been some decent moments in
several
title games, but quick, name who played in last year's ACC championship.
If it takes you a moment, don't worry; you and about 50,000 other people
didn't go to see Virginia Tech beat Boston College for the
second year in a row aren't the only ones who'd struggle to answer it.
When it comes to the Pac 10, I love the
nine game conference schedule and wish the other leagues would ditch non-conference
games to come up with more conference battles and a true champion. It
makes my sense of inner justice happy to know that the Pac 10 and Big
East champions are true, unlike the title holders in the other
BCS leagues. If some Big Ten teams miss Ohio State, and some SEC teams
miss Florida, it's hard to truly be happy with the results.
For those who want Pac 10 expansion and a
championship game because you like the format and you want the closure
of a season-ending battle, fine. You like what you like, but don't throw out
the argument that the Pac 10 needs a title game to get more respect from
the BCS. Ask Ohio State if you need a conference championship game to
play for the national title. Ask West Virginia, who would've been
playing for it all in 2007 if it had beaten Pitt in the regular season
finale. USC hasn't missed out on playing for the national championship
because it didn't get a conference championship game, and that includes
2003 (remember, the rules and BCS set up has been changed and tweaked).
Yes, the SEC and the Big 12 have gotten extra exposure from having the
big end of the year extravaganza, but it wouldn't have mattered much in
the final equation over the last few years if
the Trojans had blasted away on, say, Oregon, in early December. USC
would've played for the national championship in 2006 if it hadn't
gagged against UCLA, it would've played for it all in 2007 if it hadn't
gagged at home against Stanford, and it would've played for it all last
year if it hadn't lost to Oregon State. Is that fair, considering there
isn't a playoff? Not necessarily
(that's another argument for another day), but it's not like the Pac 10
has gotten that hosed when it comes to the national
title. Remember, had Oregon not lost star QB Dennis Dixon to a knee
injury late in 2007, it probably would've ended up playing for the national
championship. The world follows the Pac 10 more than many Pac 10 fans
believe, and there doesn't need to be a championship game to get more
attention.
Now, if the Pac 10 decides to add on two teams, then the great debate
begins. Forget about what has happened on the field; wins and losses
don't necessarily matter. The Pac 10 will only expand if 1) the academic
side of things fit the profile, 2) if the TV market becomes expanded and
improved,
and 3) if it ups the prestige of the league. While Boise State and
Hawaii might be interesting, it's not like the Pac
10 head honchos are desperate to get the Idaho and Hawaii markets. And
they're probably not going to be all that fired up to own Utah, either.
And that's the problem. From the standpoint of competitive athletics,
BYU and Utah make the most sense to add, but does anyone care if the
league adds Salt Lake City to the TV package? Maybe a little bit, but
not that much. They're a good geographical
fit, too, but so are Fresno State, New Mexico, San Diego State, and UNLV, who would
be more in the mix for a spot than many might think. Forget about
stealing someone like Colorado, or anyone from the Big 12; the Big 12 isn't the old
Big East. No one would want to leave the Big 12 for the Pac 10, just
like no one would ever leave the SEC for the ACC. It's just not going to
happen.
With all that said, will the Pac 10 ever take on two new teams?
Probably, It might take a few years, but it'll probably happen.
Richard
Cirminiello,
CFN
Q: Are you for Pac 10 expansion? If it adds two teams, who should they be?
A: No way. I’ve always loved the way the Pac-10 is
symmetrically constructed and balanced. Two schools perfectly situated
in Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Northern California, and Southern
California. It’s tailor-made for rivalries and, unlike the ACC and Big
East, makes sense to the folks at Hagstrom.
Best of all, since the advent of a 12-game schedule a few years back,
every Pac-10 team plays each other annually, which is how things ought
to be. No grey areas, such as the great Ohio State-Iowa debate of 2002,
and no fluky scheduling advantages, like when Kansas missed Texas and
Oklahoma in its 2007 Orange Bowl season. If you want to win a conference
title, you be better prepared to go through the entire gauntlet. What a
novel concept.
Finally, I despise the league championship games. Always have. To me,
it’s overkill and too often, the games don’t live up to the hype. Either
every league should have them or, preferably, every league should not.
Yeah, yeah, I know the economic impact of, say, an SEC title game in
Atlanta, but since your coiffures aren’t personally impacted, do you
really get jacked up for these games? I can understand the appeal if the
Pac-10 can attract a twin-killing, like BYU and Utah, but two more teams
mean another league championship in early December, which I can do
without. Honestly, do you really need to see South Division champ USC
pound North Division champ Oregon at a neutral site? I’d pass and keep
things static in the Pac-10.
Matthew
Zemek, CFN
Q: Are you for Pac 10 expansion? If it adds two teams, who should they be?
A:
No, I'm not for Pac-10 expansion. The league has been progressive in
implementing a nine-game league schedule, so that all teams play each
other during the year, thereby avoiding an Ohio State-Iowa scenario from
the 2002 season.
What the Pac-10 needs--if I might digress for a few seconds--is real
leadership from incoming commissioner Larry Scott, the former CEO of the
Sony Ericsson WTA (tennis) Tour. Specifically, the league needs a real
TV contract and some creative ideas to increase the visibility of Pac-10
football and Western football in general.
Back to the question at hand: If the league--which, remember, used to be
the Pac-8 before Arizona and Arizona State were admitted from the WAC in
the mid-1970s--wanted to move to 12 teams, BYU and Utah would be the two
natural candidates for expansion. San Diego State might merit a look in
the future, but not now.
Kevin Cardin,
Publisher, SCPlaybook.com
Q: Are you for Pac 10 expansion? If it adds two teams, who should they be?
A:
I am actually against Pac-10
expansion for the simple fact that I don’t think it is needed at this
point. The Pac-10 gets it right by having nine conference games instead
of opting for eight like conferences such as the SEC, who then allow
their teams go out and schedule yet another cupcake to pad their
records.
In the Pac-10, you play every team in the
conference every single season, so by the end of the year you know who
the true champion is and don’t need a conference championship game.
In conferences like the SEC and the Big 12 that
have twelve teams and eight conference games, you miss playing three
conference teams a year. Then they have a conference championship game
that at times doesn’t even include the two best teams in the conference.
The Pac-10’s problem is they need a better TV deal
and better bowl games to enhance their national exposure and change the
perception that they are a weak conference before they worry themselves
with expansion.
Jon Miller,
Publisher, HawkeyeNation.com
Q: Are you for Pac 10 expansion? If it adds two teams, who should they be?
A:
10 seems to be a pretty
good number to me.
Expanding
the league only makes sense if you want to have a league championship
game, but as I see it there isn’t a reason for that.
Why?
Because every
team in that league plays one another.
Expanding the league only makes sense if you want to have a
league championship game.
If you were going to expand
that league, which direction do you go?
Do you try to steal Colorado from the Big 12?
They might be interested, because that league seems to be a 10
team subsidy for Texas and Oklahoma.
Boise State? Their
fans would be all for it, but their stadium seats just over 30,000.
Utah seats closer to 50,000 and they make geographical sense,
too, but you don’t bring in both of those programs.
I don’t know that you look to bring Fresno State in, but they can
put over 40,000 in their stadium, too.
Do you look at Hawaii?
Maybe. I just think
in the end, 10 is a good number for that league, they play one another
during the year and they are aligned with the Rose Bowl.
Why change?
Hunter Ansley,
Publisher, DraftZoo.com
Q: Are you for Pac 10 expansion? If it adds two teams, who should they be?
A:
Yeah, I'm for Pac 10 expansion. I think the sooner we get conference
championship games for all of the conferences, the sooner we'll start to
see a playoff as a real possibility. But that's another discussion.
With another game, a championship game, the Pac 10 would receive
increased viewership, and we'd finally stop hearing so much about the
"East Coast bias." Anything that slows that down I'll welcome with open
arms. Not to mention the fact that we might finally get to see USC play
an SEC team in the BCS title.
I'd add Utah and BYU to the Pac 10. Geographically, they make sense.
And then there's the history that a school like BYU would add to the
conference. And while both teams have been pretty successful lately,
Utah has far and away been the most prestigious of the non-BCS teams
during the BCS era. As an added bonus, the conference would acquire one
of the more underrated rivalry games in the country, The Holy War.
That's an aspect of expansion that's rarely talked about. It'd be hard
to break the two up. Boise State and Fresno State got some
consideration from me, but adding two rivals that basically play Pac 10
teams every year anyway just makes too much sense.
|