The Pac-10 expansion debate 

February, 11, 2010
Pac-10 expansion is this week's topic in The Argument, my Thursday edition of the blog.

Making the case against it is Los Angeles-based college football writer Dan Greenspan, who has covered the Pac-10 since 2004 and can be found on Twitter @dangreenspan.

Dan Greenspan's Case

There are only two reasons to expand the Pac-10: to increase its television footprint and to improve its football prestige. However, short of landing the Texas Longhorns or Notre Dame Fighting Irish, there are no additions that address both issues.

With the Brigham Young Cougars, the Boise State Broncos and any California state school unlikely to clear the necessary academic hurdles, the two most viable candidates leave much to be desired. The Utah Utes, with two BCS bowl berths, would be a hit from a football standpoint -- but does Salt Lake City (the 31st-largest Nielsen market) make the conference more attractive to grow television revenues? The Colorado Buffaloes would bring with them a top-20 media market but have been bulldozed by the rest of the Big 12.

To the larger issue, as the ACC has shown, simply adding members to stage a championship game is no guarantee of success, on or off the field. That was bringing in the Miami Hurricanes and Virginia Tech Hokies -- two programs with track records far better than any credentials the Utes or Buffaloes would bring to a Pac-12.

And if new deputy commissioner Kevin Weiberg can't capitalize on having six of the top 22 media markets already in the fold, what difference would expansion make in presenting the Pac-10 to a national audience?

And now, making the case for expansion is Chris Huston, a former USC sports information assistant who created the site