NCAA 2009

[katmai]

Oddly enough, Arizona STILL controls their own destiny - I think if they win out, they still got to the Rose Bowl.

that's what I said last night.

[derspiess]

There are so many bowls now that it's hard for a 6-win team to be left out, though it does still happen. 

Marshall may well be one of those teams, though that's assuming it can manage to beat UTEP or (less likely) SMU.  Snyder should be out of there, in any case.

[Berkut]

I think the Pac-10 will get rid of the round robing schedule. Costs too much $$$.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think the Pac-10 will get rid of the round robing schedule. Costs too much $$$.

What's the alternative, scheduling such that some Pac-10 teams never meet in regular season play?  Unless the Pac-10 goes to a split division format with a championship game not sure how else they can schedule, and to do that they'd have to add teams.

[Berkut]

I think the Pac-10 will get rid of the round robing schedule. Costs too much $$$.

What's the alternative, scheduling such that some Pac-10 teams never meet in regular season play?  Unless the Pac-10 goes to a split division format with a championship game not sure how else they can schedule, and to do that they'd have to add teams.

There has been a lot of talk, especially with the new commissioner, about expansion, actually.

But what they would do sans expansion is that you would just not play 1 team in the conference each year, and it would rotate. They did this before the NCAA allowed a 12 game schedule.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The Big 10(11) does that but I think that's only worked because historically the championship is always won by Michigan or Ohio State and they play every single year.  I could see really big problems with fan outcry and et cetera in years when a team like Oregon or Cal go undefeated in the Pac-10 but so does USC and the two never meet.  I think that's less of a concern in the Big10 because most of the teams in the Big 10 are so terrible.

[katmai]

Yep more likely they just drop 1 conference game then expansion from what I think.

[Berkut]

The Big 10(11) does that but I think that's only worked because historically the championship is always won by Michigan or Ohio State and they play every single year.  I could see really big problems with fan outcry and et cetera in years when a team like Oregon or Cal go undefeated in the Pac-10 but so does USC and the two never meet.  I think that's less of a concern in the Big10 because most of the teams in the Big 10 are so terrible.

Indeed - it why Pac-10 fans are so proud of being the only BCS conference that plays an actual conference schedule.

But what are the odds that you are going to get that second team into a BCS game when you haven't structurued things like the SEC, so that you can just beat up on patsies and OOC cupcakes to get two 1 or 0 loss teams? And there is simply too much money at stake getting that second team into a BCS game.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Big East has always done round robin, actually. 

I think the ACC did too before they added 50 teams to adopt a conference championship model but I could be mistaken on that.

Getting two teams into a BCS game was the point behind the ACC restructuring from what I can tell; unfortunately the ACC fell apart somewhere around 2004.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think expansion makes the most financial sense since you get to do a conference championship game which brings in a lot of money for the conference as a whole.  Would have to find two west coast schools that have decent-sized stadiums and fan bases, though.

[Eddie Teach]

Texas may have a soft schedule, but they've looked like a top tier team in those games- only 2 of their wins have been by less than 24 points. Florida and Alabama have tougher (conference) schedules, but they've had a lot more close ones. Texas probably has the best offense of the three.

I wouldn't vote them #1 myself, but there's definitely an argument to be made for them.

[Berkut]

The Pac-10 should pick up Texas and A&M.

[stjaba]

If the Pac-10 wants to expand, it should go for MWC or WAC teams. Boise State would be a great fit IMO. But who else? Utah and Brigham Young would be good targets too, but I don't think the MWC would let that happen without a fight.

Honestly, I don't even know if Boise State would want to join the Pac-10. As it stands, it has a better chance of making every year than it would inside the Pac-10.

[PDH]

The Pac-10 has a reputation as a conference of schools with excellent academics as well - I believe all the schools are at least PhD granting institutions.  Trucker-U, er, Boise State does not fit in this very well.

Utah would be a much better academic fit, but as has been mentioned the MWC would fight this quite hard (it was the defections of Arizona and ASU in the 70s that altered the old WAC, people have long memories).  I would guess, if the money is enough, a couple of schools would jump - likely from the MWC (Utah and BYU).

[katmai]

I think expansion makes the most financial sense since you get to do a conference championship game which brings in a lot of money for the conference as a whole.  Would have to find two west coast schools that have decent-sized stadiums and fan bases, though.

and that is the problem.
Utah?
Byu?
The lack of any viable schools to invite is why I don't see expansion happening without poaching from big 12.