Utah running back Eddie Wide avoids a Cal tackler in last year's Poinsettia Bowl (Photo by US Presswire/Kirby Lee)

If Utah joins Colorado as the two newest members of the Pac-10, which division would the Utes and Buffaloes be a part of if the conference realigns to two six-team divisions (which is expected, especially in football because of the chance for a league championship game)?

Hypothetically speaking, Utah and Colorado would be matched with Arizona and ASU when factoring distance between the schools. The Arizona schools as a tandem are the closest in miles to Boulder, Colo., and Salt Lake City. Tempe is 507 miles from Salt Lake City and 587 to Boulder. Tucson is 590 and 624, respectively.

The question is would the UA, ASU, Colorado and Utah be part of the Pac-10 South with the L.A. schools? Geographically, that would make the most sense. The Pac-10 realistically can not be separated East-West because eight of its teams are in states that are vertical down the coast. A North-South division is a more feasible separation, although Cal and Stanford will likely balk at the idea of being separated from their California neighbors.

If Cal, Stanford, UCLA and USC remain intact with the Arizona schools, Utah and Colorado could form a division with the Oregon and Washington schools. However, that would dismiss the proximity of the Arizona schools to Boulder and Salt Lake City. Here’s a breakdown of the mileage between those two cities and other Pac-10 cities:

BOULDER TO
Salt Lake City 351
Tempe 587
Tucson 624
Pullman 756
L.A. 827
Berkeley 926
Palo Alto 927
Eugene 956
Corvallis 971
Seattle 998

SALT LAKE CITY TO
Boulder 351
Pullman 491
Tempe 509
L.A. 583
Berkeley 592
Tucson 592
Palo Alto 598
Eugene 617
Corvallis 636
Seattle 702

An Arizona alliance with the L.A. schools in the new division would make a lot of Wildcat alumni happy in southern California.

The saving grace for the Pac-10 after having the door slam on its face by Texas, appears to be Utah, which should jump at the chance to join a BCS conference after defeating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl two seasons ago.

If the Utes want to show they belong with elite football programs, the time is now. Playing for the Mountain West conference title in most years — even with Boise State now included — pales in comparison to a Pac-10 championshnip and chance to play in the Rose Bowl.

In terms of men’s hoops, the Mountain West features strong programs like Utah, UNLV, BYU and San Diego State. However, in eight years out of 10, the Pac-10 is stronger. UCLA and Arizona traditionally offer better competition than the MWC elite.

Jim Boylen, who will become a candidate for the Michigan State job if Tom Izzo is hired by the Cleveland Cavaliers, should be at the head of the line encouraging the Utah administration to accept a potential invitation from the Pac-10. The Utes, with higher visibility, can tap more into recruiting Los Angeles.

Financially, uniting with the Pac-10 is a no-brainer for Utah. The Pac-10 had nearly twice the revenue than the MWC in 2008. With a football championship and television network in the works, especially if Utah joins the party, the Pac-10 figures to improve its meager standing among other power conferences.

Forbes magazine reports that Utah, which had a revenue between $8.5 million and $12 million in 2009, will see an increase of $5 to $8 million by joining the Pac-10.

Controversy always surrounds a significant conference change, such as the potential for Pac-10 expansion to 16 teams by next week. The fear that the University of Arizona’s competitive edge will be lost if Texas and Oklahoma are in its division is tame, however, compared to the school’s conference developments historically. Arizona’s background of moving from one conference to the next ironically involved the Wildcats desiring to improve their competition level.

Here’s a rundown of each noteworthy development when Arizona was introduced to a new conference:

Into the Border Conference

Even before the Wildcats joined their first conference — the Border Conference in 1931 — controversy struck (and it had nothing to do with Arizona having to replace legendary coach J.F. “Pop” McKale, who resigned after the 1930 season to concentrate on athletic director duties). The UA administration threatened to not play traditional rival New Mexico in 1931 because the Lobos featured five Native American players who transferred from the Haskell Institute in Kansas with questionable transferable credits.

October 23, 1931, headline in the Albuquerque Journal regarding Arizona's objection to five Native American players with questionable transferrable credits on New Mexico's team heading into the first Border Conference season

According to the Albuquerque Journal, the UA argued that other conferences in the region would not allow the players to transfer to one of their schools. The three other Border Conference schools voted to allow the players to transfer to New Mexico. Those institutions included ASU (Arizona State Teachers-Tempe back then), NAU (Arizona State Teachers-Flagstaff), and New Mexico State (New Mexico A&M). Texas Tech joined the Border Conference a year later.

Arizona-New Mexico was as heated of a rivalry as Arizona vs. ASU at that time and the Wildcat administration refused to align with the other Border Conference schools on the matter. The situation was resolved when an arbitrary decision by the Pacific Coast Conference commissioner allowed the players to gain eligibility and compete despite questionable transferable credits.

The Border Conference would add Texas Mines (later Texas-El Paso), Hardin-Simmons and West Texas Teachers (now known as West Texas A&M) before disbanding in 1961. The end of the league came about largely because Arizona wanted out after larger schools such as New Mexico and Texas Tech left previously. New Mexico departed for the Skyline Conference in 1951 and Texas Tech exited to the Southwest Conference in 1956.

From the Border Conference to the WAC

Former UA football coach Jim LaRue, pictured here after his hire in 1959, found the going much more rough in the WAC after the UA left the Border Conference (Tucson Daily Citizen photo/June 6, 1959)

According to the Dec. 12, 1960, edition of the El Paso Herald-Post, Arizona actively sought to leave the Border Conference for an alliance with the Skyline Conference, which had nine schools including BYU, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. “Arizona’s announcement of withdrawal came as a surprise although the school had shown dissatisfaction for sometime over its membership in the Border Conference,” the Herald-Post reported.

(more…)

Colorado and Nebraska could be gone from the Big 12 by the weekend with the Buffaloes headed to the Pac-10 and Cornhuskers to the Big Ten (US Presswire photo/Ron Chenoy)

This much we know: Colorado has officially joined the Pac-10. (First I learned of this was reading former colleague Jon Wilner‘s report in his San Jose Mercury News blog last night at about 11 p.m.).

Wilner, who has his pulse on the expansion as much as or more than anyone, took it one step further by suggesting that Utah, more so than any of the Texas teams from the Big 12, could be part of the Pac-10 soon. We heard about Colorado and Utah potentially joining the Pac-10 months ago.

The Dallas Morning News offered a blog also late Wednesday night that suggested that invitations from the Pac-10 to Texas Tech, Texas and Texas A&M could be coming soon.

So amid the Internet reports, blogs and bulletins clamoring over the Pac-10′s next move, it’s a safe bet that more moves will be forthcoming.

Wilner suggests that if only Utah and Colorado join, two divisions will be formed and a football championship game will be played.

What will the division alignment be if the Pac-10 becomes the Pac-12?

Arizona, ASU, USC, UCLA, Utah and Colorado in one division? Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Wazzu in the other? That would make the most sense. Most Arizona fans would not mind this arrangement, because the Cats would continue to regularly play against coveted opponents USC and UCLA (coveted because of the fertile L.A. recruiting area and the thousands of UA alumni in that area).

The main argument against the Pac-10 extending to the Oklahoma and Texas schools is that Arizona will play USC and UCLA less and the Cats’ chance to win the league outright in football — which has never happened — will likely never happen because of the strength of the Texas and Oklahoma programs.

All these arguments are moot when the bottom line (money from a television network and mega conference football championship that could include USC and Texas in future years) is discussed.

The Buffaloes are 95-76 under their last three football coaches -- Rick Neuheisel, Gary Barnett and Dan Hawkins -- since the departure of Bill McCartney in 1994 (US Presswire photo/Ron Chenoy)

One person contacted me yesterday fretting the idea of being in a division with the Texas and Oklahoma schools because if conferences realign again, Arizona and ASU might face the same predicament Kansas and Kansas State are going through now.

My feeling is Arizona and ASU are lifetime charter members of the Pac-10 because of the Phoenix market, their overall competitive athletic programs, and their proximity to conference hub Los Angeles.

Colorado’s inclusion means the Denver market is added to the Pac-10. Thanks to Wikipedia for this: The 10-county Denver-Aurora-Broomfield (Colo.) metropolitan statistical area had an estimated 2009 population of 2,552,195 and ranked as the 21st most populous U.S. metropolitan statistical area. The 12-county Denver-Aurora-Boulder combined statistical area had an estimated 2009 population of 3,110,436 and ranked as the 16th most populous U.S. metropolitan area.

It is the largest city within a 500-mile radius and the second-largest city in the Mountain West after Phoenix (the fifth most populated city — 1.5 million people — in the United States). In fact, ASU in Tempe is the Pac-10′s closest school to Boulder (850 miles).

The Buffaloes’ inclusion is strictly money related. It has to be considering what the Buffaloes are known for on the playing field. Colorado has won 23 NCAA championships, including 17 in skiing, three in men’s cross country, two in women’s cross country, and one in football. The championship in football occurred 20 years ago and it was shared in the polls with Georgia Tech.

Skiing?

Colorado does not field a baseball or softball team.

The Buffaloes will be the equivalent of Washington State in men’s basketball and perhaps the same as Arizona (from an outsider’s point of view) and ASU in football currently. Nothing earth shattering there.

Perhaps the most intriguing news is that UCLA football coach Rick Neuheisel will have to regularly face two of his former programs now — Colorado and Washington, both of which came under NCAA scrutiny with him as the head coach.

New Arizona defensive assistant Greg Brown left the Colorado program after last season and now must scout his former team when the Cats face the Buffaloes.

UA football coach Mike Stoops told the Daily Oklahoman last weekend that he is concerned about the competition level if programs such as Texas and Oklahoma become part of the Pac-10. If that’s the case, the inclusion of Colorado should not cause Stoops to sweat even in the Tucson sun. However, at what point do you welcome improved competition to get more out of your own program? Not at all?

I mean, can you imagine the atmosphere at Arizona Stadium with Texas rolling into town for a conference game? Colorado and Utah coming to Tucson is a faint cry of that, although the competitively strong Ute program has gained notoriety nationally with their win over Alabama in the Sugar Bowl two seasons ago.

It comes down to this: Do you want an easier path to that ever elusive Rose Bowl appearance (although going through USC to get there is never easy), or do you welcome competing against the Longhorns and Sooners (not to mention also the Trojans and Bruins and all the TV money involved) every year to get there?