Pac-10 expansion

[Sgt John]

And, like Missouri in the Big 10, I really think Colorado in a super Pac10 would get their asses kicked off the face of the planet.

 

[Kingdome]

And, like Missouri in the Big 10, I really think Colorado in a super Pac10 would get their asses kicked off the face of the planet.

The last time CU was good was when they recruited California hard. Joining the Pac-10 should help them as they will land more CA recruits. That's why Oregon is good. They have a weak in-state recruiting base, but since CA has such a talent surplus, there is plenty to go around. In the Super PAc-10, CU would play at least one game in California each year, which makes it easier for recruiting since both recruits & families/friends of the players will be able to attend at least one game every year near home.

 

[Sgt John]

The last time Colorado was good...what was the state of the Pac10? Just curious to know if the conference as a whole was as good then as they are now?

 

[Kingdome]

The last time Colorado was good...what was the state of the Pac10? Just curious to know if the conference as a whole was as good then as they are now?

Colorado was good when the Pac-10 was good. Their hiccup in the late 90's matched the Pac-10's. When they were winning under McCartney & Neuheisel, they were recruiting CA, TX, & LA hard. When Barney took over, they lost ground in those areas.

 

[The Ram]

The last time Colorado was good...what was the state of the Pac10? Just curious to know if the conference as a whole was as good then as they are now?

The last time CU was good Reagan was a first term president....just sayin'.

 

[Kingdome]

The last time CU was good Reagan was a first term president....just sayin'.

I never knew Reagan was President in the 90's. They didn't have a winning season under McCartney until 1985. The CU glory years are roughly 1985 to 2005, with the peak years from 1989-1996.

 

[Sgt John]

Id say the CU "glory" ended in a 67 point loss to us in the Big 12 title game.

 

[Miller]

We add Texas, Texas A&M, CU, & Utah and our deal will dwarf your deal. Look at the demographics, media markets etc. Also, the Pac-10 channel will have better content throughout the year as they are the best baseball, softball, & volleyball conference, which will help land more $.

Just because the Big Ten got an early leap in the new economics of college sports doesn't mean they will maintain their position. Just look at Detroit & the auto industry there as an example.

And when we add Texas, Mizzou and a East coast team we will dwarf your....oh wait, we already do that....well let's just say we will continue to dominate the Pac-10 deals....

I love how you try to use the fact that the Big 10 was innovative and ahead of the curve as a negative. With that being the case, and the fact that the Pac-10 is still standing on the sidelines in that regard, don't ya think that the Big 10 may just be a little quicker to evolve??

And you trying to argue that all the non-football sports is not irrelevant just makes my case even stronger...if you truly believe that then you just don't get it. Only other sport that has any impact is men's basketball. You have to follow the money. Just b/c the football programs make it possible for fancy other sports complex's, it does not mean that they will matter in a decision of this magnitude.

Another thing you have chose to ignore is the make up of the schools in the tow conferences. Big 10 has BIG, tradition rich, state schools with huge enrollments for the most part. Exactly like Texas. Pac-10 has much smaller schools with much smaller enrollments.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out, but if the Pac-10 gets into a bidding war with the Big 10 over Texas they will lose.

 

[Kingdome]

And when we add Texas, Mizzou and a East coast team we will dwarf your....oh wait, we already do that....well let's just say we will continue to dominate the Pac-10 deals....

Yes, add Texas and you will dwarf our potential deal. Add Missouri, Pitt, and no you won't (if we add Texas, etc). Add Notre Dame, then yes, you will have a nice deal.

I love how you try to use the fact that the Big 10 was innovative and ahead of the curve as a negative.

Never said that at all. I just think it is a poor argument to compare the Big Ten's oranges to the Pac-10's apples. We have not gone through the process you folks have. Again, we just had a major leadership shift & are just entering that process right now. My point is that the Pac-10 could put together a package more lucrative than the Big Ten deal with the right addition of teams. If the Pac-10 adds Texas, A&M, CU, & Utah, it would have the potential to surpass the Big Ten's deal. Look at the demographics!

To make my point clear, my issue isn't with the Big Ten & their network, my issue is you comparing your conference's revenues when you are already in the next generation while we are just starting that process.

And you trying to argue that all the non-football sports is not irrelevant just makes my case even stronger...if you truly believe that then you just don't get it. Only other sport that has any impact is men's basketball. You have to follow the money.

Look at the pictures above. You obviously do not understand the motivations of the University of Texas. Even in this day of large media revenues, a bulk of the $ comes from private donations. Do you think those fans that pack that baseball stadium would rather see subpar Big Ten snowball or 7 or 8 top 25 Pac-10 teams rolling through?

Just b/c the football programs make it possible for fancy other sports complex's, it does not mean that they will matter in a decision of this magnitude.

Texas isn't a Big Ten school I guess, they make $ in more than just football & men's basketball. Once again you are highlighting why Texas is a better fit in the Pac-10. Baseball programs outside of snow country do make $. Adding Texas to the Pac-10 roster would give the Pac-10 network the best spring sports line-up of any conference. Softball is one of the fastest growing sports on TV. The Pac-10 is by far the best softball conference, it isn't close.

Another thing you have chose to ignore is the make up of the schools in the tow conferences. Big 10 has BIG, tradition rich, state schools with huge enrollments for the most part. Exactly like Texas. Pac-10 has much smaller schools with much smaller enrollments.

What are you talking about? Our smallest school (Stanford) is roughly the same size as your smallest school (Northwestern). All our universities, except Stanford, have over 20,000 students and are large universities. Look at the growth rates at UO & OSU, the two "smaller" public schools. Oregon is a growing state, those numbers will catch up. Average enrollment: Big Ten 40,500 Pac-10 34,000.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out, but if the Pac-10 gets into a bidding war with the Big 10 over Texas they will lose.

I doubt that. I am wondering if we are even bidding for them. If we are, we have by far the more attractive package. Better geography, better demographics, better sports, better weather, better travel, better geographical & time diversity for TV, better recruiting base, better collection of cities for fans to travel to.

 

[maverick824]

My point is that the Pac-10 could put together a package more lucrative than the Big Ten deal with the right addition of teams.

- That's interesting, on a similar parallel, I'm pretty sure I could buy a house much bigger than yours if I won the lottery! Basically the exact same argument! But here's the interesting part, and why your logic here is completely flawed. Leave the conferences where they are, don't add any to either. The Big Ten is far more lucrative WITHOUT adding Texas. Your "superior" Pac-10 deal is reliant on adding a Texas or other very strong school to the package to make the gears turn. I'm sure you'll say something about a leadership change. That's fine. Yes, a Pac-10 network would shift the balance a touch and make the two conferences closer in TV revenue, that's obvious. The fact is though, the Big Ten has this advantage right NOW, in the time where in theory both schools are. This isn't a pitch for the Pac 10 to land a Texas deal 5 years down the road, it's for now LOL.

Look at the pictures above. You obviously do not understand the motivations of the University of Texas. Even in this day of large media revenues, a bulk of the $ comes from private donations. Do you think those fans that pack that baseball stadium would rather see subpar Big Ten snowball or 7 or 8 top 25 Pac-10 teams rolling through?

So your argument here is to convince me that the weight of fans for Texas' spring sports would trump that of their football fan base? Okay, I think that one stands by itself LOL, I'll move on.

Texas isn't a Big Ten school I guess, they make $ in more than just football & men's basketball.

Sure they do, all prominent sports programs in all universities make money. They simply do not make enough money to compete with football. They don't even make enough to compete with mens basketball a percentage of time. In this case, Texas, a nationally prominent basketball program makes more than the spring sports do, I'm certain of it.

Baseball programs outside of snow country do make $. Adding Texas to the Pac-10 roster would give the Pac-10 network the best spring sports line-up of any conference. Softball is one of the fastest growing sports on TV. The Pac-10 is by far the best softball conference, it isn't close.

You are honestly trying to compare softball and baseball as a prominent NATIONAL sport? The only time college baseball is even relevant during the season nationally is one week for the CWS. All you have to do is watch your national sports network, ESPN. I'd dare to say they cover nationally football and basketball just a "small" margin more than they do baseball and (still laughing) softball.

 

[WesDawg]

Rashaan Salaam says "Shut yo face"!!!!

 

[Miller]

Yes, add Texas and you will dwarf our potential deal. Add Missouri, Pitt, and no you won't (if we add Texas, etc). Add Notre Dame, then yes, you will have a nice deal.

So what about the East Coast market? If you compare your "Super-Pac 10" in which you used 14 teams to a 14 team "Super-Big 10" in which they add the major media markets of Texas, Missouri (Kansas City & St. L), and one of the East Coast Schools (Syracuse, Rutgers) again the potential of the Big Ten is greater. We could cover major revenue markets in the East, Midwest, and South with bringing Texas into the fold. You would still be basically limited to the West and Southwest regions from a market pull.

And as far as a "nice deal"....ummm we do NOTHING and we have a "nice deal"! Our schools each brought in 22 million last year in TV revenue!! Numbers the Pac-10 are dreaming about. Expansion will only build on that number and could push it in the 30 range with the correct additional markets.

Never said that at all. I just think it is a poor argument to compare the Big Ten's oranges to the Pac-10's apples. We have not gone through the process you folks have. Again, we just had a major leadership shift & are just entering that process right now. My point is that the Pac-10 could put together a package more lucrative than the Big Ten deal with the right addition of teams. If the Pac-10 adds Texas, A&M, CU, & Utah, it would have the potential to surpass the Big Ten's deal. Look at the demographics!

So it's a poor argument to compare what they both have currently? OK....guess we just give the Pac-10 folks a mulligan for being asleep at the wheel and behind the big slow folks up in the downtrodden midwest....guess inovation isn't one of the things growing in the west.

And yes, "if" you add Texas and a few others they would have the "potential" to surpass the Big 10's CURRENT status. But look at the Big 10, they are not sitting still. They have set up an internal infrastructure for growth and expansion. In now surrounds around growing their demographic footprint and not adding more of the same. This is why Texas is such a great match with the Big 10. And even without Texas, the Big 10 is in a great spot. The Pac-10 has put themselves in a spot where they "need" someone like Texas to catch up with the revenues being produced in the Mid-west and South. The Big-10 already has these revenues, they are just looking to continue to widen the gap to the rest of the pack.

To make my point clear, my issue isn't with the Big Ten & their network, my issue is you comparing your conference's revenues when you are already in the next generation while we are just starting that process.

Guess that is my point as well. You are trying to compare where you may be down to the road to where we already are. If you have an issue with comparing two confrences and where they both are currently then I think all you are trying to do is steer the discussion to where you feel it is advantageous to you. All I am doing is comparing where they are at now. Like I said before, you are trying to make it into a positive for the Pac-10 that they were slow to evolve and and put their confrence in a hole from a revenue standpoint. What makes you think by the time the Pac-10 catches up to where the Big 10 is now that the Big 10 will not evolve to the next level already and leave them still in catch-up mode? Being behind is not a positive in my eyes.

Look at the pictures above. You obviously do not understand the motivations of the University of Texas. Even in this day of large media revenues, a bulk of the $ comes from private donations. Do you think those fans that pack that baseball stadium would rather see subpar Big Ten snowball or 7 or 8 top 25 Pac-10 teams rolling through?

You are seriously trying to tell me with a straight face that a college president is seriously going to take into consideration these small programs? I think you are the one who does not understand the motivations of the University of Texas. I'll break them down for you and you let me know where I am wrong:
1. Increase the football television revenue to the level of other National Brand teams.
2. Extend the "brand" of Texas athlethics into additonal markets.
3. Increase the academic reputation and research capabilities of the School.

Sorry, putting them in a better baseball and women's softball confrence just missed the list.....

Texas isn't a Big Ten school I guess, they make $ in more than just football & men's basketball. Once again you are highlighting why Texas is a better fit in the Pac-10. Baseball programs outside of snow country do make $. Adding Texas to the Pac-10 roster would give the Pac-10 network the best spring sports line-up of any conference. Softball is one of the fastest growing sports on TV. The Pac-10 is by far the best softball conference, it isn't close.

:biglaugh: you really did not mention softball in this argument and expect me to give you a serious response did you....:biglaugh:

What are you talking about? Our smallest school (Stanford) is roughly the same size as your smallest school (Northwestern). All our universities, except Stanford, have over 20,000 students and are large universities. Look at the growth rates at UO & OSU, the two "smaller" public schools. Oregon is a growing state, those numbers will catch up. Average enrollment: Big Ten 40,500 Pac-10 34,000.

Again, you speak of catching up.....keep on catching up, we are already there.

I doubt that. I am wondering if we are even bidding for them. If we are, we have by far the more attractive package. Better geography, better demographics, better sports, better weather, better travel, better geographical & time diversity for TV, better recruiting base, better collection of cities for fans to travel to.

Guess we will see. Make no mistake, Pac-10 is "bidding" for them, if they are not then they are foolish and will never catch up. But the more attractive package is a bunch of a fluff and falls short of the biggest areas of motivation fro Texas to make this move. Nothing against the Pac-10, great confrence, great collection of schools. Just has fallen behind from a revenue standpoint. Your hope is they add Texas to catch up to where the Big 10 is.....The Big 10 is already there and can move even farther.

 

[Sgt John]

I will just throw in to keep this arguement going, we dont give a shit how the Baseball team gets to the CWS, they just better get there.....

Miller: How are the swimming facilities in the Big 10?

 

[Miller]

I will just throw in to keep this arguement going, we dont give a shit how the Baseball team gets to the CWS, they just better get there.....

Miller: How are the swimming facilities in the Big 10?

not sure, but our wrestling program's are the best in the nation!! I think that will sway the balance of power

 

[Kingdome]

- That's interesting, on a similar parallel, I'm pretty sure I could buy a house much bigger than yours if I won the lottery! Basically the exact same argument!

I think the Pac-10 could make a better case to the University of Texas than the Big Ten can. I don't know if we are looking that direction, but if we are, I like our chances.

But here's the interesting part, and why your logic here is completely flawed. Leave the conferences where they are, don't add any to either. The Big Ten is far more lucrative WITHOUT adding Texas.

Yes, as I stated in a post above. Currently the Big Ten region is about a third larger than Pac-10 country. In 20 years, that will probably change though.

Your "superior" Pac-10 deal is reliant on adding a Texas or other very strong school to the package to make the gears turn.

Actually it is reliant on adding 4 big programs. Again, this is all hypothetical, but if the Pac-10 & Big Ten are both seriously at looking to expand into super conferences, I like the Pac-10's chances at landing UT & A&M over the Big Ten.

This isn't a pitch for the Pac 10 to land a Texas deal 5 years down the road, it's for now LOL.

If Texas can make similar $ with a Pac-10 deal, they would take it. As I outline above, Texas is a way better fit in the Pac-10. Texas is the #1 revenue program as it is, they can wait a year or two for the Super Pac-10 to really cash in. Texas is not strapped for cash. Money is not their big motivation to look beyond the Big 12.

So your argument here is to convince me that the weight of fans for Texas' spring sports would trump that of their football fan base?

All sports. Football, volleyball, golf, baseball, softball, swimming, tiddlywinks. Texas is a better fit in the Pac-10 in every sport!

Texas is a better fit geographically in the Pac-10. Name a great Texas player from Big Ten country? I'll start my Pac-10 region list with a Heisman Trophy winner.

Texas Football would be in a better situation playing in the more diverse climates out west, fans would benefit from the cheaper & easier travel, better selection of cities to visit, & they would be in a better recruiting territory.

Texas moving to the Big Ten helps the Big Ten more than it does Texas. It puts Texas in a climate & recruiting disadvantage to peer schools (Oklahoma & other nearby programs left out). Big Ten schools poach Texas more than Texas poaches their territory, and it isn't close! Texas moving to the Pac-10 is a move that better compliments what the University of Texas is.

Sure they do, all prominent sports programs in all universities make money. They simply do not make enough money to compete with football. They don't even make enough to compete with mens basketball a percentage of time. In this case, Texas, a nationally prominent basketball program makes more than the spring sports do, I'm certain of it.

The fans that buy the tickets, donate the $, etc. want to win championships & watch great sport. The Pac-10 is the better fit for sports. Better weather, better recruiting base, easier travel, better programs. Joining the Pac-10 would put the Pac-10 demographically on par with the Big Ten, so they will make plenty of money.

You are honestly trying to compare softball and baseball as a prominent NATIONAL sport?

Again, joining a Super Pac-10 would keep football & basketball revenues elite. Since football revenues would be elite in either situation, it is important to look at the rest of the package. Does this make sense to you? Texas will get its $ regardless, it just needs to find the best fit, & between the Pac-10 & Big Ten, it is the Pac-10.

The only time college baseball is even relevant during the season nationally is one week for the CWS.

...Says the guy from snowball country. Go to a game at Texas long before the CWS & tell me they don't care about baseball. Texas cares about all of its programs, don't you guys get it?

 

[Kingdome]

So what about the East Coast market? If you compare your "Super-Pac 10" in which you used 14 teams to a 14 team "Super-Big 10" in which they add the major media markets of Texas, Missouri (Kansas City & St. L), and one of the East Coast Schools (Syracuse, Rutgers) again the potential of the Big Ten is greater.

I doubt the Big Ten adds Rutgers or Syracuse. Neither school helps them out. Penn State is just as visible as Rutgers in much of that country. The ACC skipped on Rutgers & Syracuse, and I expect the Big Ten to smartly do the same. People think that since Rutgers is close to NYC, it is the defacto team of the market. If you are serious about super growth, why leave out the SE? That's where the growth is.

We could cover major revenue markets in the East, Midwest, and South with bringing Texas into the fold.

Why would Texas come alone and be the only warm weather school? Where are the other warm weather schools to compliment Texas? How does it benefit Texas being distant & a different climate?

So it's a poor argument to compare what they both have currently?

It makes more sense to compare the hypotheticals, because that is exactly what Texas has to do.

.guess inovation isn't one of the things growing in the west.

Yes and Ohio and Michigan are thriving. [/sarcasm] We are doing it slow because we are trying to get it right (hopefully). Plus it takes 8 out of 10 votes to get anything done, so we need to build consensus. We almost added Texas before BTW, but Stanford nixed it.

And yes, "if" you add Texas and a few others they would have the "potential" to surpass the Big 10's CURRENT status.

Pac-10 with A&M, CU, UT, & Utah is similar demographically (but with more favorable #s) than if you add Missouri, Pittsburgh, & Notre Dame, but if you add Notre Dame, their cache will trump the demos. Look at the growth rates too. Adding dying upstate NY is not as good as adding rapidly growing western or southern areas.

But look at the Big 10, they are not sitting still. They have set up an internal infrastructure for growth and expansion. In now surrounds around growing their demographic footprint and not adding more of the same. This is why Texas is such a great match with the Big 10.

It is a good fit for the Big Ten, but not a good fit for the University of Texas. Stop thinking things from the Big Ten fans view and look at things from the Texas perspective.

And even without Texas, the Big 10 is in a great spot. The Pac-10 has put themselves in a spot where they "need" someone like Texas to catch up with the revenues being produced in the Mid-west and South.

Then why does the Pac-10 win more titles? Texas is also #1 in revenue, so what catching up is there to do there?

The Big-10 already has these revenues, they are just looking to continue to widen the gap to the rest of the pack.

You mean catch up to Texas?

Guess that is my point as well. You are trying to compare where you may be down to the road to where we already are. If you have an issue with comparing two confrences and where they both are currently then I think all you are trying to do is steer the discussion to where you feel it is advantageous to you.

If Texas is going to join a conference, they need to analyze the situation as if they are apart of the conference. Doing the research without including that very important aspect is stupid. You have to compare the hypothetical.

All I am doing is comparing where they are at now. Like I said before, you are trying to make it into a positive for the Pac-10 that they were slow to evolve and and put their confrence in a hole from a revenue standpoint. What makes you think by the time the Pac-10 catches up to where the Big 10 is now that the Big 10 will not evolve to the next level already and leave them still in catch-up mode? Being behind is not a positive in my eyes.

The Big Ten lags in geography, growth, and climate. Let's see you folks fix that. Our revenue issue can be fixed. Your problems are much deeper than the Pac-10's problems and can not be easily remedied. Even with all of those revenues, you still lag the Pac-10 on the field. $ doesn't win games, talent does, & the Pac-10 is the least tapped major talent region in the country. Heck, Texas has pulled a Heisman Trophy winner from here.

You are seriously trying to tell me with a straight face that a college president is seriously going to take into consideration these small programs?

They ain't small. Texas isn't a Big Ten school obviously! They want to win at everything, just like the programs in the Pac-10.

I think you are the one who does not understand the motivations of the University of Texas. I'll break them down for you and you let me know where I am wrong:
1. Increase the football television revenue to the level of other National Brand teams.

Texas is #1 in revenues already.

2. Extend the "brand" of Texas athlethics into additonal markets.

Advantage Pac-10.

3. Increase the academic reputation and research capabilities of the School.

Big Ten & Pac-10 are the two conferences that can do that. Your academic advantage is less than I realized:

Top American Universities:

2. Stanford
3. California
8. Chicago
11. UCLA
14. Washington
15. Wisconsin
18. Michigan
19. Illinois
20. Minnesota
22. Northwestern
26. Colorado
29. Texas
32. Penn State
33. USC
37. Pitt
38. Rutgers
41. Purdue
42. Ohio State
45. Arizona
47. Utah
48. Michigan State
50. Texas A&M
52. Indiana
53. Arizona State
56-70. Iowa, Oregon State
91-112. Washington State, Oregon, Missouri, Notre Dame
113-138. Syracuse

Add OHSU (the medical school) to Oregon and they are top 50.

Sorry, putting them in a better baseball and women's softball confrence just missed the list.....

It is more than that. From football to golf, the Pac-10 is a better fit. Better climate, easier travel, better competition, better recruiting base.

:biglaugh: you really did not mention softball in this argument and expect me to give you a serious response did you....:biglaugh:

What do they show on the Big Ten channel after basketball season? The trend is towards exclusive broadcast networks. The Pac-10 has greater potential for viewers & revenues throughout the year.

Again, you speak of catching up.....keep on catching up, we are already there.

But we will inevitably pass you. Look at the trends. We have a "natural advantage" over the Big Ten.

Guess we will see. Make no mistake, Pac-10 is "bidding" for them,

Link please? I have heard no official confirmation or any good rumors. I do know that we almost landed Texas once before. They were interested. The Univ. of Texas already knows they would be a great fit in the Pac-10. Being based in Texas and regularly playing in California will give Texas the biggest recruiting advantage in the country.

But the more attractive package is a bunch of a fluff and falls short of the biggest areas of motivation fro Texas to make this move.

Nonsense. The Pac-10 is a better package. You have yet to explain why moving to the Big Ten helps Texas. All it does is help the other 11 Big Ten teams at Texas's expense. Again, where are all the Great Lakes area stars who played at Texas?

Nothing against the Pac-10, great confrence, great collection of schools. Just has fallen behind from a revenue standpoint.

That is easily fixed. The Big Ten is stuck with its geography & climate, they can't fix that. Your problems are deeper & less correctable.

 

[Kingdome]

not sure, but our wrestling program's are the best in the nation!! I think that will sway the balance of power

Add Oklahoma State & Iowa State to the Big 10 and you will never lose a wrestling title again, except to maybe Arizona State once every 30 years.

 

[Miller]

So where are all these championships in the Pac-10 you speak of??? Just ran through a list of some of the top sports in the other thread....reality kinda sucks when you don't win as much as you seem to think you do in your mind....

The Big 10's location and climate is what it is.....and the Pac-10 has always had the same advantages in those areas and yet they still lag behind. When they finally do all these things you think they can wake the rest of us up. At this point, they are still way behind confrences in the Midwest, South and some would even say the East (not sure what the ACC deals are overall).

 

[Kingdome]

So where are all these championships in the Pac-10 you speak of??? Just ran through a list of some of the top sports in the other thread....reality kinda sucks when you don't win as much as you seem to think you do in your mind....

Natl. titles last 25 years:

Football: Pac-10 3, Big Ten 3
Basketball: Big Ten 3, Pac-10 2
W. Basketball: Pac-10 2, Big Ten 1
Baseball: Pac-10 6, Big Ten 0
Softball: Pac-10 20, Big Ten 1
W. Volleyball: Pac-10 11, Big Ten 4
M. Volleyball: Pac-10 11, Big Ten 2
M. Golf: Pac-10 8, Big Ten 1
W. Golf: Pac-10 13, Big Ten 0
M. Cross Country: Pac-10 6, Big Ten 3
W. Cross Country: Pac-10 7, Big Ten 1
M. Gymnastics: Pac-10 8, Big Ten 8
W. Gymnastics: Pac-10 5, Big Ten 0
Fencing: Big Ten 13, Pac-10 0
M. Rowing: Pac-10 8, Big Ten 1
W. Rowing: Pac-10 6, Big Ten 0
M. Soccer: Big 10 6, Pac-10 4
W. Soccer: Pac-10 1, Big Ten 0
M. Swimming: Pac-10 8, Big Ten 1
W. Swimming: Pac-10 10, Big Ten 0
M. Indoor Track: Pac-10 2, Big Ten 1
W. Indoor Track: Pac-10 4, Big Ten 0
M. Outdoor Track: Pac-10 3, Big Ten 0
W. Outdoor Track: Pac-10 4, Big Ten 0
M. Tennis: Pac-10 17, Big Ten 1
W. Tennis: Pac-10 15, Big Ten 0
M. Water Polo: Pac-10 23, Big Ten 0
W. Water Polo: Pac-10 9, Big Ten 0
Wrestling: Big Ten 16, Pac-10 1
W. Lacrosse: Big Ten 7, Pac-10 0
Curling: Pac-10 1, Big Ten 1

Total championships: Pac-10 218, Big Ten 74

Weighted Championship index: Pac-10 1376, Big Ten 844

The Big 10's location and climate is what it is.....and the Pac-10 has always had the same advantages in those areas and yet they still lag behind.

We lag in demographics (catching up) & will inevitably catch up in money too. We can fix our revenues, you can't fix your geographical handicap.

Big Ten population 2000 - 65,370,346
Big Ten population 2009 - 67,379,505
Net Growth - +2,009,159
Growth Rate - +3.0%

Pac-10 population 2000 - 54,350,674
Pac-10 population 2009 - 61,204,820
Net Growth - +6,854,146
Growth Rate - +11.2%

Estimated year Pac-10 region surpasses Big Ten region in population: 2023
Estimated population in 25 years: Pac-10 79,101,877, Big Ten 72,157,274 (+6,944,603 Pac-10)

I did the math post-real estate bust & the Big Ten fares even more poorly. Using those %s, the Pac-10 surpasses the Big Ten a year earlier and is 8,064,835 people larger in 25 years.

 

[DearbornDolfan]

The Big 10's only revenue advantage is its network, and the Pac-10 is going to have that within five years anyway. Plus, a Texas vs USC game every year is going to dwarf the 8 million the Big 10 is offering, even without the network contract.