ScottyBuff

Now that the school options have been explored, let's examine the financial impacts on the rest of the conference.

Adding a conference championship game in football can net the Pac-10 anywhere from $5 million to $12 million annually (we'll use a conservative estimate of $8 million). This would be an additional "nugget" in the TV contract negotiations. The cost to host the game would be approximately $1 million, but the opportunity for high-grossing ticket sales, naming rights, sponsorships, and advertisements would clearly result in a net gain. The downside risk would be if Washington State and Utah were the first participants, as the key to successful championship games is having highly marketable matchups.

Learning from the successes and failures from the SEC, Big 12, and the ACC, it seems clearly best to choose one host site that is a destination location to host the game on an annual basis. It is best if the venue is an NFL venue, as opposed to a college stadium, and that the community can create a surrounding atmosphere of celebration similar to a bowl game.

The sites that fall within the expanded Pac-10 footprint that fit these criteria would be:

• San Diego, CA—Qualcomm Stadium
• Phoenix, AZ—University of Phoenix Stadium
• Oakland, CA—Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum
• San Francisco, CA—Candlestick Park (or a planned new stadium in 2014)
• Seattle, WA—Qwest Field
• Denver, CO—Invesco Field at Mile High

Many of those stadiums are outdated for the NFL and have issues with owners trying to obtain a newly built stadium (San Francisco, Oakland, and San Diego). Denver is too far from the traditional Pac-10 fanbase and therefore should not be considered (as cool as that would be for Denver). Phoenix and Seattle are the remaining two stadiums that fit the criteria.

Of those two, Phoenix has the tourism base and past bowl experience to host such an event as an annual affair. The proximity to Southern California media, the favorable weather to attract participant fans, and the relatively cheap airfare available to fly into Phoenix all make that location the best possible option to host a conference championship game. That is, until an NFL quality stadium is constructed in the Los Angeles area.

Conference Divisions

Dividing up the new 12-team conference into two six team divisions would surely elicit complaints from any quarter, no matter how it would be accomplished. Using a Big 12 model (strict North vs. South) could result in a similar imbalance down the road, if six teams were limited in their access to the main recruiting pipeline (the state of California).
Using an ACC model to split traditional rivals and balance the geographic effect (Atlantic vs. Coastal) could also have a similar effect in a lack of identity with the division and increased travel costs.

Using an modified East vs. West model would create a split in the access to California, as well as form divisional identities and retain the importance of the main rivals in the final week of conference play. Retaining the regional rivalries of the Northwestern schools while still giving them access to the California recruiting and media markets is vital to gaining member approval.

The California schools would split based on their institutional rivalry while preserving their regional rival for an intra-divisional game and possibly even a conference championship matchup. The two Arizona schools would then form another block with fellow four-corner states that were added in the expansion.

Pacific Division
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Stanford
Southern Cal

Mountain Division
California
UCLA
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
Colorado (or BYU)

Television Money
Currently the Pac-10 television contract is outdated, at best, and horribly uncompetitive at worst. TV revenues drive big-time college sports and have done so for the better part of three decades, yet the Pac-10 lives in a bygone era with its current patchwork TV programming.

Needless to say, the members of the Pac-10 benefit the least of all the major "BCS" conferences, outside of the Big East, from their TV contract. It can be argued that the Big East gains more exposure via their deal, however.

Rarely are the Pac-10 games on national TV, and even more frustrating is the lack of regional access. Eastern and Central time zone college football fans have to work pretty hard to even watch a Pac-10 game on TV.

The money that flows into each team from the conference contracts is approximately $4.3 million per team (it isn't divided up equally, however). The new commissioner should have no problem leveraging an expanded Pac-10, with a conference championship game for football, into an increased package that pays at least $100 million annually (based on conservative market increases) for an approximate $7 to 8 million per team.

"This whole TV discussion is going to be as important a strategic and business issue as I deal with in my career at the Pac-10," Scott said. "Whatever we decide is going to be a 15-, 20-, 25-year deal."

An equal revenue sharing model needs to be approved within the current Pac-10 government. The current hybrid model exists only within the Big 12 and the Pac-10, the two major conferences with the weakest overall TV contracts. The SEC, Big Ten, ACC, and just recently even the Big East; have all adopted a flat sharing agreement amongst their members.

Implementing this policy change in addition to acquiring the improved TV contract would net member schools nearly $7 million each before other revenues (like bowl payouts and licensing/royalties fees) are distributed. An average increase of nearly $3 million to each university currently in the Pac-10, a major upgrade for expansion target Utah, and still a $2 million gain to attract the CU Buffs.

Adding the University of Colorado would be crucial to this part of Pac-10 revenue growth, as the Denver TV market would be a major selling point to go alongside major markets of L.A. (second), Bay Area (sixth), Phoenix (12th), Seattle (13th), Sacramento (20th), Portland (22nd), and San Diego (28th).