Monday morning, Colin Cowherd predicted that Utah and Colorado going to the Pac-10 is a done deal. I disagree. In the audio clip, you can listen to it here and more audio here, it appears he uses reasoning to show that it is a done deal. Here is my analysis showing that it is not a done deal for the Pac-10 to expand.
First off, the Pac-10 does not need to keep pace with the Big 10 in terms of revenue, as Colin proposed. In his own words he said that the Big 10 quadruples the Pac-10 in terms of revenue and overall is a much better conference for different terms he described in the audio. The Pac-10 has no chance, and never has had a chance at catching up with the Big 10. You can throw that theory out the window because if the Pac-10 has any sense, (and they do) they will realize that they can try everything they want but they will never be the superpower that the Big 10 is.
Next, he described that the Pac-10 is for sure going to expand. Where did he get that information? My theory is that he thinks that the only way for the Pac-10 to gain revenue is through expansion, which he would use the theory of the Pac-10 wanting to keep up with the Big 10 as the reason the Pac-10 wants to gain revenue. The idea that the only way for the Pac-10 to gain revenue is through expansion is just straight up wrong. Here is the link to the article I will be using as reference for this part. In this article, Jeremy shows that the Pac-10 is trying to change a NCAA Bylaw stating that you do not have to have 12 teams for a championship game and that the Pac-10 was looking into making their own TV Channel. According to this article I believe the Pac-10 is looking for every possible way to get more revenue without expansion, which means that they don't want to expand. If that is the case, then their last option is to expand, not their first. If that bylaw does get changed, then the Pac-10 expansion rumors, in my opinion will officially be over. Also, in the audio clip he said that there is nothing on paper about it! Hint, hint it is a prediction. So, to sum things up, expansion is not the only way for the Pac-10 to gain revenue, they could also change that NCAA Bylaw and create the Pac-10 network.
The last subject on this is after the jump...
He also said that it is a done deal that it would be Utah and Colorado. I disagree with that since there is nothing on paper about it and there has been no reported meetings between the Pac-10 and Utah/Colorado. Now, most of us who have talked expansion think that if the Pac-10 were to expand, they should add Utah and Colorado, but let's not rule out Texas and Texas A&M. The schools are linked together by the Texas legislature so that is why I did not put Utah and Texas, which would be the best case scenario for the Pac-10. One issue with the Pac-10 expanding, period, is that in order for the Pac-10 to expand, there has to be a unanimous vote from the member schools to send the school an invitation. If you remember back, when the SWC was obliterated, Texas wanted to join either the Big 10 or Pac-10, the Big 10 denied the appeal and so the question fell to the Pac-10. Texas seemed like the perfect fit, they had everything, academics, athletics and media and recruiting markets. For some reason Stanford said no to addind to Texas and the whole Big 8 - SWC teams merger occured. If Stanford said no to Texas, what makes you think that they are going to say yes to Utah? Money? Stanford makes a lot more money off athletics than a lot of schools. Better football program? That's disputable.
Let's Compare Texas with Utah in what matters when looking at expansion candidates.
|Recruiting Market||Much Smaller||Much Bigger|
|Football Program||Slight disadvantage||Slight advantage|
|Basketball Program||Major disadvantage||Major Advantage|
Yes, Texas' media market is bigger than Utah's because even though Utah has a bigger city market, Texas has a boatload more fans than Utah with fans prominent around the country. Utah has fans in Utah and about 10,000 more on the west coast. So more people would buy a Pac-10 network if they added Texas then if they added Utah, giving Texas the bigger media market. There is no question that Texas is a much bigger recruiting market than Utah's. Utah and Texas are pretty even in football in the fact that year in and year out they are both top 25 teams but Texas is always higher than Utah. There is not even a remote question of who is better in basketball and that pretty much seals the deal that Texas is a better candidate than Utah. Now, you still have to bring along A&M too right? Not to worry, Colorado is not really cared about in Denver, according to Colin, and A&M has the second most fans of a college in Texas. They also have a better football and basketball program compared to Colorado and have a much better media market. There is no question about it, Texas and A&M is a better combination for the Pac-10 than Utah and Colorado.
The only reason that Utah and Colorado are the front runners is because of politics. If you remember back (again) to when the SWC was obliterated, the Big 8 wanted to expand and add Texas and A&M. The only issue was that the Texas legislature would not allow them to go without taking Baylor and Texas Tech along with them. The Big 8 conformed, forming the Big 12 and destroying the SWC. When the legislature made that decision, they only said that if Texas and A&M were to join the Big 8, Baylor and Tech had to go along with them. That was only for the Big 8. If Texas and A&M wanted to go to the Pac-10, they would have to go through the same process they went through before with the legislature. So unless something happens, Texas and A&M are stuck in the Big 12. Although with all the back room deals happening today you never know... (that was a joke)
On that note, we come to the conclusion. The Pac-10 does not have a chance of keeping up with the Big 10, therefore they don't want to try drastic measures that could hurt the conference in the long run and still be way short money wise. If the Pac-10 did want to keep up with the Big 10, then expanding is not their only option to gain revenue. Utah and Colorado are only the front runners for potential Pac-10 expansion because of the Texas legislature. Overall, this should prove that this being a done deal of Utah and Colorado going to the Pac-10 without anything on paper is very unlikely and unless the Pac-10 and Utah/Colorado are having meetings being kept secret by the secret service, Colin Cowherd is wrong.
After reading all this information, do you think Utah and Colorado going to the Pac-10 is a done deal?
Yes (183 votes)
No (99 votes)
282 total votes