The Big 14?

[ScottyBuff]

Will CU really lose $15-20 million? Let me give you some facts and you should feel better about CU's ability to join the Pac-10.

ESPN article that shows CU got $8 million from the Big 12: http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/2094/how-the-big-12-teams-rank-in-revenue-sharing-funds

Big 12 bylaws: http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdfs/handbook/Bylaws.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410

The Big 12 bylaws state that if you give the Big 12 a two year notice, you lose 50% of that money for the last two years as a member of the conference. That means CU would lose $8 million from 2010-11 and 2011-12. CU's share could go down if the Buffs do not appear on TV as often. Suppose CU's share goes down to 6 million for those two years, the Buffs lose 6 million not 8 million.

Now if the Buffs were to start Pac-10 play in 2011, the Buffs would lose 80% of that amount which would translate to $12.8 million.

Nash,

Keep reading the rest of the Big 12 bylaws about the notice required in relation to the ending of each "additional term" in the agreement.

I've done quite a bit of study on this matter:

http://www.allbuffs.com/showthread.php/44402-Big-12-Buyout-15-million

I could be wrong, but would appreciate someone else taking a critical look at the issue. The Denver Post sportswriters all made the same assumption that you did, but they re-did their research and found they were wrong as well.

 

[NashBuff]

I don't necessarily agree that saying "NO" to the Pac-10 (if they asked) would be a sign of "F U" to the west coast alumni. It sounds like we aren't all that great at tying them into the program as it is now, and these are all just rumors so anyone that feels that CU is already obliged to the Pac-10 is getting ahead of themselves.

Do I want CU in the Pac-10? absolutely!

If nothing changes, however, it won't wreck my world or perception of the team. I think it is a better opportunity, but I don't sit in the central offices tracking admission numbers, donations, capital budgets, and operating expenses all day to know what the true advantages and disadvantages of such a move would be.

I think that the Big 12 can take steps to not only salvage itself but grow during this time of uncertainty. To me, the Big 12 operating model is being tested severely by the SEC and BigTen, and maybe by the Pac-10 within a year or two. That means it is either grow or die time for the conference leadership. The schools in the past that have blocked positive growth may now see the errors of their ways and things can change.

The bottom line is that even if we had equal TV revenue sharing, it would only amount to an extra $1 to $2 million a year. While that isn't chump change, it isn't going to break us out of our financial contraints either. The CU alumni, boosters, and fans have got to be the change they want to see in the school. While it sucks that we see such contributions as "support" for the HC and therefore refrain from our support, in truth it is only proving the point that maybe CU can't maintain a "big time" football program in the current "arms race". The Big 12 or the Pac-10 aren't going to solve our problems for us. Now, I don't think things are that bad to where we need worry about being dumped into the MWC or WAC.

A new HC and/or a new conference could be a great kickstart to getting everyone's interest in the Buffs back in line and open the pocketbooks. But, if success on the field is hard to come by again then are we back to square one, or further behind?

The question is that if the Buffs chose to remain in the Big 12, would Texas be amendable to creating a Big 12 Network or will they not do it and create their own TV network?

I think CU is still better off in the Pac-10 over the long run and if the Pac-10 creates the television network, it will have a larger population footprint than the Big 12. I saw somewhere that the Pac-10 would have the most people in their footprint even compared to the Big 10 and the SEC.

If the Buffs remained in the Big 12, the Buffs most likely will struggle in football in the Big 12 for at least another three to five more years because the Buffs would have to rebuild the Texas recruiting pipeline and with the way things are going, it will be very difficult for the Buffs to do that. If we switched over to the Pac-10, we should be able to turn things around in football quicker. IMO, the Texas pipeline is broken and it would be difficult to fix it in a short period of time.

 

[ScottyBuff]

The question is that if the Buffs chose to remain in the Big 12, would Texas be amendable to creating a Big 12 Network or will they not do it and create their own TV network?

I think CU is still better off in the Pac-10 over the long run and if the Pac-10 creates the television network, it will have a larger population footprint than the Big 12. I saw somewhere that the Pac-10 would have the most people in their footprint even compared to the Big 10 and the SEC.

If the Buffs remained in the Big 12, the Buffs most likely will struggle in football in the Big 12 for at least another three to five more years because the Buffs would have to rebuild the Texas recruiting pipeline and with the way things are going, it will be very difficult for the Buffs to do that. If we switched over to the Pac-10, we should be able to turn things around in football quicker. IMO, the Texas pipeline is broken and it would be difficult to fix it in a short period of time.

I agree 100% with what you say in this post. The Big 12 is "fixable" but based on the past there is little hope change will be coming.

 

[NashBuff]

Nash,

Keep reading the rest of the Big 12 bylaws about the notice required in relation to the ending of each "additional term" in the agreement.

I've done quite a bit of study on this matter:

http://www.allbuffs.com/showthread.php/44402-Big-12-Buyout-15-million

I could be wrong, but would appreciate someone else taking a critical look at the issue. The Denver Post sportswriters all made the same assumption that you did, but they re-did their research and found they were wrong as well.

I checked your link and it didn't have the Big 12 bylaws which I included in this thread. I didn't mean to steal your thunder but I was responding to someone who said we'd lose 15-20 million dollars and based on the facts, it seems overblown and closer to $8 million. And let's recall that Bohn declined $3 million from CU boosters to buy out Hawkins.

Now suppose you jack up the student activities fee at CU by $100 each, that's almost an extra $3 million a year so that's $6 million. That's one of the many ways you could come up with the $$$ and let's not forget about the Folsom Field naming rights.

Money shouldn't be that big of a concern...IT'S WAY OVERBLOWN!

 

[NashBuff]

I agree 100% with what you say in this post. The Big 12 is "fixable" but based on the past there is little hope change will be coming.

That's why making a switch to the Pac-10 should be made regardless of the costs.

 

[OKCBuff]

I'm sure CU fans are still dreaming about the Pac-10 but at the same time, some of those fans probably had NIGHTMARES about CU remaining in the Big 12.

Just before walking into the office this morning, I had this thought: WHAT WOULD THE RAMIFICATIONS BE IF THE BUFFS SAID NO TO THE PAC-10 A SECOND TIME?

I don't think the ramifications would be any good in this case. I think this would be a strong message to the left coast alumni that CU doesn't care about them like CU should. Has Mike Bohn been working for awhile to change the way how CU treats their boosters and alumni? Would the California CU grads send their kids to a different Pac-10 school as a result? Would donations dry up and put CU in an even worse situation which could eventually land the Buffs in the *gasp* MWC or WAC?

Don't get me started on the ridcule that would come from opposing Big 12 schools.

A lot has been written about the hurdles CU faces in joining the Pac-10 but no one has bothered to discuss the consquences of telling the Pac-10 NO for a second time and choosing to remain in the Big 12 even if the Big 12 remained intact.

That's a great "unintended consequences" point and I wonder about that as well. My take? If CU said no to another Pac-10 public invite, you could pretty much cross off the Pac-10 EVER considering CU. I would think they'd be mad at us at that point and would rather add CSU and pump money into their leaky ship in an attempt to take the Denver market in a hostile takeover. It will probably not go public, though, as there would likely be a private, pre-invite sent to CU before a real offer was made.

Last time, it was understandable to stay because the Big Eight was expanding and you wanted to stick around and see that commitment through. I'm glad CU did that. But now? If you say no, that's a firm vote of "I'm sticking it out with the Big 12 til the end." Which, really, could be 4-5 years away IMO. I don't think this conference has good leadership and now is the time to look out for CU first.

I've ultimately decided a jump to the Pac-10 is urgently needed for a lot of reasons. I HATE losing the Big Eight ties, but things just aren't the same. I would look forward to staying up late watching the Buffs on the coast.

Lots of teams have a presence in Dallas. OU/UT/A&M/ even Arkansas has a huge alumni base there. Even if UT leaves, the Dallas market will still be solid for alot of programs.

Much like Atlanta in the SEC, Dallas is kind of the quasi-capital for Big 12 grads/fans. There are a ton of UT, A&M, Tech, OSU and OU fans there. Baylor too.

But make no mistake: UT leaving the Big 12 would END the Big 12. Bar none. It would mean a 10-team league, as A&M has followed big brother to the next location. And it could mean eight, if Mizzou and CU left. Basically, I think the end of the Big 12 is an eventuality. CU needs to go now before it gets trapped under the rubble of a fallen conference.

 

[DesertDawg526]

I'm really starting to think that a Pacific Athletic Conference expansion would be best suited with four new teams, possibly 16 except I don't see that many quality institutions as being available.

The reasoning is quite simple.

People outside of the west coast generally view the current Pac-10 as weak, despite a strong history in all sports including football and basketball. Over the past few years, traditional Pac powers in football (UW and UCLA) have stunk, exacerbating the perception of the Pac being weak. The Pac is only two years removed now from an undefeated bowl season, though admittedly this year's bowl season revealed just how poorly the top Pac teams were playing.

The Pac expanding to 12 would improve their stock nationallyand give rise to the all important "conference championship game" which allows two teams from the same conference to potentially play in BCS bowl games...

Expanding even further (14 or 16 teams) might boost the power and prestige even further, making the Pac a conference that those on the east coast can no longer ignore...

Just my $0.02.

I want to see at least 14 teams in the new Pac.

Pacific Athletic Conference?
Pac-14?
SuperPac?
A completely new name?

 

[somebody]

Pacrock

 

[tante]

I'm really starting to think that a Pacific Athletic Conference expansion would be best suited with four new teams, possibly 16 except I don't see that many quality institutions as being available.

The reasoning is quite simple.

People outside of the west coast generally view the current Pac-10 as weak, despite a strong history in all sports including football and basketball. Over the past few years, traditional Pac powers in football (UW and UCLA) have stunk, exacerbating the perception of the Pac being weak. The Pac is only two years removed now from an undefeated bowl season, though admittedly this year's bowl season revealed just how poorly the top Pac teams were playing.

The Pac expanding to 12 would improve their stock nationallyand give rise to the all important "conference championship game" which allows two teams from the same conference to potentially play in BCS bowl games...

Expanding even further (14 or 16 teams) might boost the power and prestige even further, making the Pac a conference that those on the east coast can no longer ignore...

Just my $0.02.

I want to see at least 14 teams in the new Pac.

Pacific Athletic Conference?
Pac-14?
SuperPac?
A completely new name?

And whole else do you see in the PAC 14 or 16? I think it is hard to get to that number unless you start looking at UT and A&M

 

[ScottyBuff]

I checked your link and it didn't have the Big 12 bylaws which I included in this thread. I didn't mean to steal your thunder but I was responding to someone who said we'd lose 15-20 million dollars and based on the facts, it seems overblown and closer to $8 million. And let's recall that Bohn declined $3 million from CU boosters to buy out Hawkins.

Now suppose you jack up the student activities fee at CU by $100 each, that's almost an extra $3 million a year so that's $6 million. That's one of the many ways you could come up with the $$$ and let's not forget about the Folsom Field naming rights.

Money shouldn't be that big of a concern...IT'S WAY OVERBLOWN!

Nash,

I didn't link the bylaws, but since you already had them read this part:

Section 3.1

Each Member Institution shall remain a member of the Conference
​

​

until July 1, 2006 (the “Current Term”) and during any Additional Term (as defined
below). Unless a Member Institution gives written notice that it will withdraw from
the Conference at the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term to
all other Member Institutions and the Conference (a “Notice”) not less than two (2)
years before the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term, as the
case may be, each Member Institution shall remain a member of the Conference for
an additional five-year period after the end of the Current Term or the then-current
Additional Term, as the case may be (each, an “Additional Term”) unless such member​

is a Breaching Member.

The first additional term of the agreement began on July 2, 2006 and ends on July 1, 2011. That means that "proper notice" should have been given by July 1, 2009 in order to leave as a Withdrawing Member. Any notice given after that date would fall under the "Breaching Member" category. Once July 2, 2011 rolls around the Big 12 agreement states that we are then under another 5 year obligation.

To withdraw as a "Breaching Member" the following applies:

Section 3.3

Therefore,
​

​

in recognition of the obligations and responsibilities of each Member Institution to
all other Member Institutions of the Conference, each Member Institution agrees that
after such Breach, the amount of Conference revenue that would otherwise have been
distributed or distributable to the Breaching Member during the two (2) years prior to
the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term, as the case may be,
shall be reduced by an amount that equals the sum of the aggregate of such revenues
times the following percentages (such sum being the “Aggregate Reduction”); if Notice
is received less than two years but on or before eighteen months prior to the Effective
Date, 70%; if Notice is received less than eighteen months but on or before twelve
months prior to the Effective Date, 80%; if Notice is received less than twelve months
but on or before six months prior to the Effective Date, 90%; or if Notice is received​

less than six months prior to the Effective Date, 100%.

This states that the revenues distributed to the member for the TWO years prior to the effective date (end of additional term) are subject to the "Aggregate Reduction". Depending upon when we give notice that amount is:

July 1, 2010 is 80%
January 1, 2011 is 90%
July 1, 2011 is 100%

So, the two years of distributions received from the conference multplied by the effective penalty rate is what the penalty would be. It is important to note that the penalty is for TWO years, no matter when the notice is given.

You are using the $8 million from the 2008-09, but the Big 12 payout has steadily increased every year.

$106.0 million in 2006-07
$113.5 million in 2007-08 (7% increase)
$130.1 million in 2008-09 (15% increase)

so, it would seem most likely that there would be an increase in the 2009-10 and 2010-11 distributions.

 

[Buffnik]

Something I didn't see addressed in the bylaws is what happens if you're not the 1st breaching member. Say that Missouri left first for the Big XI. They would do that and not worry about the financial cost because the payouts from the Big XI are over $20 million per year and would easily offset the Big 12 penalties. If that were to happen, couldn't CU lawyers make a pretty strong case that the Big 12 is no longer the Big 12 and that there was, in effect, nothing to breach by leaving for the Pac 10 at that point?

 

[ScottyBuff]

Something I didn't see addressed in the bylaws is what happens if you're not the 1st breaching member. Say that Missouri left first for the Big XI. They would do that and not worry about the financial cost because the payouts from the Big XI are over $20 million per year and would easily offset the Big 12 penalties. If that were to happen, couldn't CU lawyers make a pretty strong case that the Big 12 is no longer the Big 12 and that there was, in effect, nothing to breach by leaving for the Pac 10 at that point?

From what I undertand, the penalties are still calculated the same. However, only non-withdrawing/non-breaching members can receive their share of the penalty proceeds. In other words, if Texas does leave the Big 12, then 80% of their regularly calculated distribution would then be divided up by the remaining 11 members. If CU also then withdrew then we would not get a share of Texas' penalty, and the remaining 10 members would received a share of both UT and CU's penalty.

 

[UrbanaBuff]

I am intrigrued by this possibility, but what do you mean two teams from the same conference can make BCS bowls? The Big Ten doesn't have a CCG and has put two teams in the BCS in 9 of the first 12 years. Do you mean two conference teams can meet for the national championship? Maybe, but if we migrate to the superconference format where everyone had a CCG, I doubt we'd see this. You'd get the champs of the two best conferences. The horseshoe Nebraska pulled out of its @ss in '01 was a fluke that we likely won't see again.

I'm really starting to think that a Pacific Athletic Conference expansion would be best suited with four new teams, possibly 16 except I don't see that many quality institutions as being available.

The reasoning is quite simple.

People outside of the west coast generally view the current Pac-10 as weak, despite a strong history in all sports including football and basketball. Over the past few years, traditional Pac powers in football (UW and UCLA) have stunk, exacerbating the perception of the Pac being weak. The Pac is only two years removed now from an undefeated bowl season, though admittedly this year's bowl season revealed just how poorly the top Pac teams were playing.

The Pac expanding to 12 would improve their stock nationallyand give rise to the all important "conference championship game" which allows two teams from the same conference to potentially play in BCS bowl games...

Expanding even further (14 or 16 teams) might boost the power and prestige even further, making the Pac a conference that those on the east coast can no longer ignore...

Just my $0.02.

I want to see at least 14 teams in the new Pac.

Pacific Athletic Conference?
Pac-14?
SuperPac?
A completely new name?

 

[ScottyBuff]

I am intrigrued by this possibility, but what do you mean two teams from the same conference can make BCS bowls? The Big Ten doesn't have a CCG and has put two teams in the BCS in 9 of the first 12 years. Do you mean two conference teams can meet for the national championship? Maybe, but if we migrate to the superconference format where everyone had a CCG, I doubt we'd see this. You'd get the champs of the two best conferences. The horseshoe Nebraska pulled out of its @ss in '01 was a fluke that we likely won't see again.

I don't think he meant an automatic 2nd team, but the conferences with the most teams Big XII, SEC, ACC, and BigTen all have a much greater chance of getting a 2nd BCS team than the conferences with 8, 9, or 10 teams; it's just shear numbers.

 

[UrbanaBuff]

I will start by saying I am 100% in favor of us joining the Pac 10.

However, anytime a long-standing conference member leaves it conference, that is a pretty aggressive/progressive move. You really think CU alums out west would fault CU for not taking a huge risk?? After all, they chose to attend CU when it was either part of the Big XII, Big 8 or its predecessors. So why would they turn their backs now when CU chose to stay with tradition? I know many of you are going to say that its a bigger risk to stay in the Big XII, but how do we know that these rumors won't pass, and the conference remains intact and gets a new and strong (for all) TV contract?

Giving up a century of tradition is a big risk. I'd almost worry more about alum donations drying up from those alums pissed that we left our old Big 8 brethren behind. But I will grant you that our situation is unique. Our tradition has been watered down. Apparently Mizzou has no problems ditching its history either and bolting if the Big Ten offers. But outside of the Big XII, I would venture to say that none of the current members of the Pac 10, Big Ten, or SEC would ever leave their conference. Too much history there. Even Pitt (at least its alums) is pissed that it is being discussed for the Big Ten, despite it being infinitely better than the Big East.

I'm sure CU fans are still dreaming about the Pac-10 but at the same time, some of those fans probably had NIGHTMARES about CU remaining in the Big 12.

Just before walking into the office this morning, I had this thought: WHAT WOULD THE RAMIFICATIONS BE IF THE BUFFS SAID NO TO THE PAC-10 A SECOND TIME?

I don't think the ramifications would be any good in this case. I think this would be a strong message to the left coast alumni that CU doesn't care about them like CU should. Has Mike Bohn been working for awhile to change the way how CU treats their boosters and alumni? Would the California CU grads send their kids to a different Pac-10 school as a result? Would donations dry up and put CU in an even worse situation which could eventually land the Buffs in the *gasp* MWC or WAC?

Don't get me started on the ridcule that would come from opposing Big 12 schools.

A lot has been written about the hurdles CU faces in joining the Pac-10 but no one has bothered to discuss the consquences of telling the Pac-10 NO for a second time and choosing to remain in the Big 12 even if the Big 12 remained intact.

 

[Buffnik]

I'd worry more about the traditions of the Big 8 if the Texas schools hadn't won the argument about Big 8 records applying to the Big 12. Based on the agreement everyone signed on for, our conference tradition only goes back to 1996. The Big 12 was a completely new and separate entity from the Big 8, not an expansion of the conference.

 

[ScottyBuff]

I'd worry more about the traditions of the Big 8 if the Texas schools hadn't won the argument about Big 8 records applying to the Big 12. Based on the agreement everyone signed on for, our conference tradition only goes back to 1996. The Big 12 was a completely new and separate entity from the Big 8, not an expansion of the conference.

I wonder, if both UT and A&M leave, if we can re-instate the Big 8? Leave Baylor behind but still pickup Texas Tech possibly.

Fire Dan Beebe, and hire MWC Commish Craig Thompson.

 

[OKCBuff]

I wonder, if both UT and A&M leave, if we can re-instate the Big 8? Leave Baylor behind but still pickup Texas Tech possibly.

Fire Dan Beebe, and hire MWC Commish Craig Thompson.

I'd be all for re-starting the Big Eight (records, etc) under that setup. But Baylor is a good school and they've done nothing wrong other than not being a glamor team in the high-profile sports. They've added a lot to other sports so I don't think that'd be fair.

A "Big Eight" with Tech and Baylor would be nice, though we would have to live with smaller TV contracts. Having OU, NU and us in the league would keep the auto bid I'm sure.

 

[Hugegroove]

Does anyone here think that the AD, Board of Regents, DiStiff, and Benson at CU has looked at joining the PAC10 (if invited) as objectively as all of us have? And considered all of the pros, cons, ROI, as all of have us here at AllBuffs have? Hell, there's practically been a thesis written on subject already!

 

[Buffnik]

Does anyone here think that the AD, Board of Regents, DiStiff, and Benson at CU has looked at joining the PAC10 (if invited) as objectively as all of us have? And considered all of the pros, cons, ROI, as all of have us here at AllBuffs have? Hell, there's practically been a thesis written on subject already!

Here's what they're asking:

1. Do the numbers work in CU's favor? (direct revenue, athletic booster support)
2. Do the academics and donors who don't care about athletics support it?
3. Do the politicians/voters in Colorado support it?

Anything else is window dressing. And if number 1 is compelling enough, numbers 2 and 3 don't matter much either.

 

[Hugegroove]

Here's what they're asking:

1. Do the numbers work in CU's favor? (direct revenue, athletic booster support)
2. Do the academics and donors who don't care about athletics support it?
3. Do the politicians/voters in Colorado support it?

Anything else is window dressing. And if number 1 is compelling enough, numbers 2 and 3 don't matter much either.

#1 A no brainer.
#2 Why would the academic dept and their donors care one way or the other as long as they were to stand financial gain and further academic integrity?
#3 Does moving to the P10 also require a bill to be put forth on the ballot to be vote on in a November or special election? I think not. As far as I know, state funding is not tied to or predicated on conference affiliation.

 

[Buffnik]

#1 A no brainer.
#2 Why would the academic dept and their donors care one way or the other as long as they were to stand financial gain and further academic integrity?
#3 Does moving to the P10 also require a bill to be put forth on the ballot to be vote on in a November or special election? I think not. As far as I know, state funding is not tied to or predicated on conference affiliation.

#2 - they wouldn't. The issue would be if they thought a move would hurt CU's academic prestige and/or lose donors. This wouldn't be the case with the Pac, so non-issue.
#3 - it's still a state university. Politicians could cause problems if they wanted to. Sounds like a move to the Pac is popular with most people in the state who care, so non-issue.

So it brings up back to #1. If the Pac can put together a financial package that makes sense, CU will jump at this opportunity.

That's my analysis, anyway.

 

[Hugegroove]

#2 - they wouldn't. The issue would be if they thought a move would hurt CU's academic prestige and/or lose donors. This wouldn't be the case with the Pac, so non-issue.
#3 - it's still a state university. Politicians could cause problems if they wanted to. Sounds like a move to the Pac is popular with most people in the state who care, so non-issue.

So it brings up back to #1. If the Pac can put together a financial package that makes sense, CU will jump at this opportunity.

That's my analysis, anyway.

Hmmmm---How would one lobby the Pac10 to hurry up and send the invatation?:smile2:

 

[UrbanaBuff]

The general consensus on a few of the Big Ten team boards that I visit is that CU is the first domino to fall. So everyone is waiting on the Pac 10 to offer us / CU to make a decision.

After that, sit back and enjoy the action...

 

[GoBuffs08]

Problem with any Big12 expansion talk is UT will probably insist that anther school in Texass get added like TCU, further moving everything Texass-centric.

CU needs to leave for the PAC yesterday.

 

[OKCBuff]

Problem with any Big12 expansion talk is UT will probably insist that anther school in Texass get added like TCU, further moving everything Texass-centric.

CU needs to leave for the PAC yesterday.

Possibly, but I've heard the South Division wouldn't want another Texas school to fight for recruits with. That's why I think a BYU, CSU or UNM would get an invite.

 

[sackman]

Whatever happens in the B12, they need to do something to strengthen the north schools. This conference has become a new-age version of the SWC. There's any number of things they could do.

 

[DesertDawg526]

And whole else do you see in the PAC 14 or 16? I think it is hard to get to that number unless you start looking at UT and A&M

That's the rub.

CU and Utah a good fit. BYU not so much, though if they agree to play sports on Sundays it could happen. Then who? I don't know...

Fresno St? San Diego St? I doubt it would be Texas schools though that would certainly strengthen the conference.

 

[DesertDawg526]

I am intrigrued by this possibility, but what do you mean two teams from the same conference can make BCS bowls? The Big Ten doesn't have a CCG and has put two teams in the BCS in 9 of the first 12 years. Do you mean two conference teams can meet for the national championship? Maybe, but if we migrate to the superconference format where everyone had a CCG, I doubt we'd see this. You'd get the champs of the two best conferences. The horseshoe Nebraska pulled out of its @ss in '01 was a fluke that we likely won't see again.

Two teams from the Pac-10 will never be in BCS bowls unless one of them is USC with one loss to the Pac-10 champion. IMO it is much, much harder for the Pac-10 to put two teams into BCS bowls than any other BCS conference, simply due to perception about the Pac and a lack of a championship game, despite them being the only BCS conference to have a full round robin playing every conference foe yearly.

So, if the BCS stays, an expanded Pac has a better seeding with the BCS.

If there is a playoff, then an expanded Pac is still in a good position.

Pac expansion would be good for the Pac no matter what happens with the BCS.

 

[BuffMania]

The Pac10 is not going to making any thing significantly more than the Big12. Reality.