I am not going to drill down too far into this but I found this story interesting...
As we have seen elsewhere not everyone seems to be thrilled with expansion. Some are worried about preserving traditional rivalries or "weekenders" as they are called, while others want to hang onto the past with no change at all.
These are the Hansen hold overs.
Chancellor Young appears to be in both camps as we see in this story in the San Francisco Examiner. He also appears to not be up on some recent developments.
Hmmm....Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. "Colorado is on a par with Oregon," he said. "Utah isn’t even in the picture."
I guess he hasn't heard the news that USC recently passed UCLA in academics.
Young loses credibility right out of the gate with this comment. If it was all about academics then why not cull some of those schools currently in the Pac-10 who don't meet up to his standards? I mean its not like every school in the Pac-10 is an academic powerhouse.
His agenda is further revealed in this next statement... (emphasis added)
"You have two schools in Washington, two in Oregon, two in northern California, two in southern California, two in Arizona, so you can have a complete round robin in football. I don’t see any way the other schools can be brought in without affecting the rivalries between the southern and northern California schools, for instance."
That’s especially critical for Cal and UCLA because there’s more than a football game involved. When the Bears and Bruins play, it’s All-U weekend on whichever campus is hosting the game, with numerous events for alumni and students from all the schools in the UC system. UCLA-Colorado or Cal-Utah wouldn’t have the same significance.
And there it is...
Sounds like a conspiracy is taking place when I read this, I chuckled when someone else wrote a piece that basically made the same claim a while back.
That fits...conspiracy theorists know no bounds. There is always someone behind a bush or under a rock out to get them.
Simply stated, stop bitching and moaning about the need for change and then complain when someone actually tries to change things. It isn't always perfect and you don't always get your way. Change is difficult and some have a hard time dealing with change when it doesn't fit their agenda.
We shouldn't be surprised that some affiliated with UCLA football are doing the most complaining...it comes from being irrelevant. That is not to say that there aren't any USC fans against expansion. They are out there, they just aren't part of the conspiracy theory crowd.
I'm curious what chancellor Young thought about Arizona and Arizona St. being added to the Pac 8 during his tenure? He must have protested that those "lesser" academic institutions don't belong in the same conference with his pretentious Bruins. Utah and Colorado fit in the middle when you compare their academics to other Pac-10 schools. Colorado is behind UW but ahead of Oregon. Utah is behind Arizona but ahead of Oregon St. and ASU. The Denver TV market (#18) and Salt Lake City TV Market (#35) are a nice get as well, adding the conference championship game increases revenue and exposure as well.
This guy sounds so out of touch its comical.
Like I have said before I don't know if this will work but I like that Larry Scott is attempting to do something. I would agree that change just for the sake of change doesn't always work. Sometimes you have to take the deal you know you can get...its called progress.
Others simply want to live in the past...
This was always about two things...money and exposure. Chancellor Young may have a point about any monies earned not necessarily going to non-revenue sports but in order to prove that point right you need to get the exposure in order to earn that money. Renegotiating the conferences Media contracts is priority #1. That gets you the exposure the conference desperately needs. I can see where expansion could be a little more of a challenge with regards to who fits the Pac-10 model, but change is proportional...you can't change one thing without changing another.
Funny how in the article he doesn't offer any other proposal other than NOT to change.
So much for having vision.
It's worth the risk...I could care less if peoples delicate sensibilities are damaged.