Utah and Colorado make sense to me. BYU is a good school too. It's just too bad they're affiliated with a wacko church.
Some thoughts against the expansion.. valid ones I would think. http://blog.oregonlive.com/pac10/2010/02/pac-10_football_how_does_confe.html
although I'm not a hundred % sure how losing at USC would help with recruits lol. But I'm not a 17 year old kid anymore.. so maybe I'm wrong.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass, and I recognize that they are institutions of learning,a dn the kids are there to get an education, etc. I just don't know what the conferences have to do with academics. How does 10 schools banding together in a conference, outside of athletics, benefit the schools?
I see the argument for Colorado, as it brings another major media market into the fold, but I think BYU makes more sense because they already have a natural rivalry with Utah, they would be coming from a mid-major conference instead of another BCS conference, and they have historically been relevant in both football and basketball. Also, the fact that they're a religious institution should (IMO) be irrelevant.
the only religious argument that I have heard (which didnt come from someone on here) was that they wouldnt play games on Sunday. Which could maybe affect other sports. Maybe they wont do different days for Football either.. but I really dont know.
read this http://www.addictedtoquack.com/2010/2/10/1304100/eastward-ho-pac-10-expansion-will Basically, adding BYU and Utah or any other similar pairing would be stupid because they're both in the same market, and Utah and Colorado makes the most sense.
Badly written, but I agree with most everything he said (except where he forgot that USC was a private school). barfo
