Sports

Greg Hansen: Adding BYU, Utah would behoove Pac-10

Here comes Utah, sleek and sassy, roaring down the football road, its team-for-the-ages flexing fresh muscles. At another time (let's say, 1981 to 1999), no Utah football team, not even this one, would be favored to win a game at Arizona Stadium against the Larry Smith or Dick Tomey Wildcats. Alas, this is good timing for the Utes, all grown up now, catching the Wildcats a full two years before Mike Stoops has a lance to go with his horse and helmet. If this Utah team is indeed of the 11-0 caliber, it's a shame that it realistically has nowhere to go but (groan) to the Liberty Bowl. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it shouldn't it be Utah's fantasy to be part of the Pac-10, playing for the Rose Bowl and assorted BCS goodies. It should be the Pac-10's fantasy to add Utah. And BYU, too. Utah has a dozen good reasons to stay in the Mountain West Conference and be happy. For one, it does not include Los Angeles, a disagreeable sort of place. Also, Utah does not have to recruit against Oregon's Nike money, Stanford's academic pull or USC's glamour. How tough can it be to get a linebacker recruit away from the University of Wind Chill at Laramie? But it is the feeling here that the Pac-10's current policy of isolationism has outlived its sensibility. "Utah has upgraded its facilities, its geography works, and it has proven it can compete at the best level in all sports - same with BYU," said Tucsonan Joe Kearney, retired commissioner of the Western Athletic Conference and former athletic director at both Arizona State and Washington. "There are more positives to Utah and BYU joining the Pac-10 than there has ever been." A decade ago, the Pac-10 was particularly keen on adding Colorado and Texas to its membership, a move that would have added the Denver and greater Texas television markets and made possible a conference championship football game. (Translation: about $600,000 extra per year for each league partner.) Rebuffed by both parties, the Pac-10 has since stood on a four-part, no-expansion platform: 1. We don't want to share our TV money. 2. We don't want to split up our bowl-game money. 3. We don't want to compromise our academic standards. 4. We can't realign into divisions because no one is willing to be placed in a group that doesn't include USC and UCLA. The academic leaders at USC, Stanford, Cal and UCLA see themselves as a coterie of Ivy League schools, West Coast division, and as long as they live, the Pac-10 will not be taking on lowbrow academic entities, not San Diego State and especially not Fresno State or UNLV. BYU and Utah are solid academically. They are not Stanford, but neither are they Cal-Fullerton. The best argument for adding Utah and BYU is that the Pac-10 would split into two divisions and create the need for a football championship game. Kearney believes that money raised by that game would be great enough to offset the split of TV money to a pair of new partners. And what about BYU's no-games-on-Sunday limitation as imposed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? "As commissioner of the WAC from 1980-94," Kearney said, "I found that to be a bogus criticism. We had no problems with BYU." Academics and finances will swing any potential Pac-10 expansion. But I think there is a third factor just as strong: excitement. That's something sorely missing in the Phoenix, L.A. and San Francisco settings. Compared to the Big Ten and Big 12, the Pac-10 is without passion. Fan support at BYU and Utah is off the charts. Year to year, only Oregon and Washington can match the game-day feel of a BYU football game. Utah is now entering that zone. Hit the Pac-10 basketball road for a season and what you find is a dreary set of games at USC, Wazzu, Arizona State and Oregon State. The basketball buzz at BYU and Utah is - as Arizona's old WAC fans remember - electric. In this new century, there are two new ideas. One, upon the 2006 completion of the Arizona Cardinals' new football stadium in Glendale, the Pac-10 will be equipped with a perfect location for a conference championship game. Two, instead of worrying about fan support at Staples Center, put the Pac-10 basketball tournament in Salt Lake City, a basketball city. Seats empty: none. "BYU and Utah bring so much to the table," said Kearney. "They have a potential to add to the (Pac-10's revenues), not detract from them." The feeling here is that it's only a matter of time until both Utah and BYU are invited to join the Pac-10. But unfortunately, that time might be closer to 2025 than 2005. Should it be the Pac-12 Conference? ● In 1978, Arizona and Arizona State were admitted to the Pacific Coast Conference, and the Pac-10 was born in its current configuration. A look at when teams joined: Note: Montana and Idaho were also members of the PCC during various years; after 1959, the conference had other names, including the Pac-8 Conference. California 1916 Washington 1916 Oregon 1916 Oregon State 1916 Washington State 1917 Stanford 1918 Southern Cal 1922 UCLA 1928 Arizona 1978 Arizona State 1978 Utah ?? BYU ??