Expansion

by DuckinNC on Jun 16, 2008 8:52 AM PDT

I just read a few articles from Duck Sports news concerning the arena of expansion. Now the articles come from a fansite and his best two options where Utah and BYU. He goes on in the articles to defend his reason. I won't waste space and time here for that. My question is if the Pac 10 where to expand to 12 which 2 teams would you want and why? I am going to take the stance for which 2 teams best serve the Pac 10 in all sports but mainly the big two, football and mens basketball.

When giving an answer please try and give valid reasoning.

My 2 choices would be Boise State and Fresno State. Both have shown no fear when playing teams from bigger conferences. Both stand up reasonably well against the Pac 10 and by getting BSU we can tap into the market of Idaho(albiet small) and the rural middle part of cali. The new travel would not put to much new strain on teams and both schools have name recognition.

Those are my choices now I want to hear from you guys.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or the Addicted To Quack Moderators. FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable Oregon fans.

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I agree on the choices.

But I’m against expansion. I think 10 teams with a full round robin is perfect, and in the end, the teams wouldn’t be adding all that much to the conference. Yeah, they can compete in the WAC, and play with middle of the road Pac-10 teams once (maybe twice a year), but I don’t see it happening over an entire season. It would drag down basketball greatly, and football marginally for at least 5 years.

by jtlight on Jun 16, 2008 9:30 AM PDT reply actions

Yes, BSU and FSU

Just because then we can show BulldogFaithful why he should appreciate being in the WAC.

Coach/Butthol '09: We shall overcome.

by qrsouther on Jun 16, 2008 10:23 AM PDT reply actions

I'm very much against expansion

but if it did happen, it would have to be BYU/Utah. Both from an academic and scheduling standpoint, but those schools would also be the most competitive choices. They are the closest teams to ‘major’ status in the mid-major ranks.

--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog

by David Piper on Jun 16, 2008 12:04 PM PDT reply actions

Maybe Utah

But BYU… private school isn’t it?

Coach/Butthol '09: We shall overcome.

by qrsouther on Jun 16, 2008 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions

USC and Stanford are too

Plus I like the 2 schools per region thing we got going

by bradLL99 on Jun 16, 2008 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes yes you're right

But those are secular private schools.

Coach/Butthol '09: We shall overcome.

by qrsouther on Jun 17, 2008 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions

religion irrelevant

BYU is a good academic school with a lot of money and a HUGE national following. I don’t want expansion, but if we went there, they would be a good choice.

--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog

by David Piper on Jun 18, 2008 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions

I think religion is relevant

When placing schools in conferences.

For example, there is a WCC and a WAC. The WCC consists entirely of religious schools, while the WAC has no religious affiliation. These schools are of similar student body populi, but they are put in different conferences for a reason. The WAC is areligious, isn’t it?

Coach/Butthol '09: We shall overcome.

by qrsouther on Jun 18, 2008 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions

I think...

The WCC is an aberration more than anything else, and is comprised of similar schools of aim and profile.

I don’t think that BYU being religious should be a holdup. They are a very large private school (more than 2x the number of undergraduates that UO has, though no grad program), they have had a strong commitment to athletics over the years, and have a strong alumni base.

The Pac-10 is an athletic institution, and should look to fulfill that goal, and not get hung up on anything else.

by jtlight on Jun 18, 2008 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Much as I agree that there should not be any, what's the word,

prejudice (?) or exclusiveness to religious schools in the Pac-10… I think it is taken into consideration by the higherups, or at least would be. Does anyone else think so?

Coach/Butthol '09: We shall overcome.

by qrsouther on Jun 18, 2008 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Texas and Oklahoma

SC, Texas, and Oklahoma would challenge any threesome in any conference

by teedawg on Jun 16, 2008 6:05 PM PDT reply actions

Expansion

I haven’t ever given expansion much thought—though I agree with Jared that 10 teams and a full round robin schedule for football seem pretty ideal. Why screw that up?

by ntrebon on Jun 16, 2008 7:39 PM PDT reply actions

And it's perfect for basketball as well...

n/t

by jtlight on Jun 17, 2008 5:23 AM PDT up reply actions

I agree

I love the round robbin

by bradLL99 on Jun 17, 2008 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm so against it...

I almost don’t want to speculate on it.

12 team conferences are just too big, and I’d hate to see Pac-10 start heading into conference championship game too.

I love round robin schedules.

Go Duckies!

by JShufelt on Jun 17, 2008 8:44 AM PDT reply actions

No Fresno

Fresno State wouldn’t make the cut academically. Boise State is a likely choice, then perhaps Utah and then BYU.

by SFDuck on Jun 17, 2008 10:49 AM PDT reply actions

My 2 cents

This is both not gonna happen, and not ideal for this conference. We’re in a good situation right now.

However, the truly only plus to it, to me at least, is the variety in it. I would love to see more of us playing Boise State and Fresno and such. We get Fresno every two years or so, so it’s more about Boise State, and even that is on it’s way. I would be honored to have both those teams in the Pac-10, but I’m not sure how the Wac would react to the metaphorical “theft” of its two highly respected and attendance-drawing programs.

Coach/Butthol '09: We shall overcome.

by qrsouther on Jun 17, 2008 12:38 PM PDT reply actions