Y
YBritQuestion: To what conference could Colorado and Utah be added so that afterwards there would be a smaller perceived gap between that conference and the SEC?
Answer: The NFC-West
The PAC 10 is now two six-packs.
Expanding (oops, I did it again) realigning to include Colorado and Utah, the PAC 10 added two pagers to their belt when they really wanted a cellphone and a Bluetooth connection. Other than the championship game, what increased media value has Scott delivered? The PAC-10's market penetration ability has certainly not been upgraded.
As well, when you begin with the in-markets of Los Angeles (#2), San Francisco (#6), Phoenix (#12) and Seattle (#13), the addition of Denver (#16) and Salt Lake City (#31) does not push the cable subscription per school meter to the right. In fact, it falls further to the left. The drawback of everyone not playing the California schools on a regular basis, (which by the way is mandatory for recruiting success by the desert and the northwest schools in California), cannot be sitting well with any of them. This move may have actually pushed the conference backward.
Yes, it is true that had Scott culled Texas he would have won the Great War of the Realignment of 2010 (in fact it would have been called the Great Expansion War of 2010) But he did not. I contend he screwed up. He got Colorado before he knew the outcome of his Texas gambit and it remains to be seen if one-twelfth of the new Double 6 PAC can be made equal to one-tenth of the old PAC 10.
Nowhere in these five versions of the realignment story have the true elements of long-term financial athletic department stability been addressed. The fact that the entire process is now being termed a realignment implies an admission of failure. Declaring any of these processes a success (regardless of what you call it) is simply delusional.
Five conferences have been altered, none have gained long-term financial security, and all five commissioners know it. Only Benson and Thompson have had the integrity to admit it.