I would think the opposite. Or at least, bringing in $20m more annually in TV revenue would reduce the pressure to raise ticket prices.

Agreed totally. First, the TX OK and Colorado teams do not even play 'our' style of football. Second, they can't keep their own conference together, what would original PAC-8 schools have to give away in order to gain 6 others? I'd rather see them add BYU, Utah and SDSU. They should then drop WSU. Not anti-coug; its just that they are perenially non competitive.

Every bit of the added revenue will get eaten by added flight expenses.

I'm sorry but that statement is just fundamentally wrong, for two reasons.

First, expanding the conference will not have a significant impact on travel expenses. If the PAC-10 becomes the PAC-16, it will be broken up into 2 8-team divisions. Most of the existing PAC-10 schools will be in a Western division, minus the Arizona schools which will form an Eastern division along with the Big 12 imports. Then, each team will play most of their conference games within their division, and a couple of games (1 or 2) against teams from the opposite division (half of which will be played at home). So, for the Ducks or Beavers, a PAC-16 simply means the difference between travelling to Arizona and travelling to Colorado, Oklahoma, and Texas (and in only 3 out of 4 years). The cost difference there will be minimal. Second, these teams already travel further than Texas or Oklahoma to play games on a pretty regular basis. Oregon has a game in Knoxville this year. OSU and UO have made trips to Pennsylvania and Indiana in recent years, and the Beavers are playing in Louisville in 2011. So if anything, an expanded conference will reduce the chance that UO or OSU will be willing to travel to the east coast to play marquee out of conference matchups and might actually decrease the distance these teams are travelling in a given year.

Second, you're vastly underestimating the increased revenue each team would see. Currently the PAC 10 pays out $9 million to each school from tv contracts. By comparison, the SEC pays out over $17 million per school, and the Big Ten $22 million. As Kari notes above, a PAC-16 could increase the payout for each school by $20 million. Any increased travel costs that may occur won't even begin to put a dent in that.

As for the schools you prefer, I agree that they are preferable from a geographical perspective, but the bottom line is that the PAC-10 wouldn't benefit from adding them to the conference. Boise, Fresno, and Salt Lake City/Utah simply aren't particularly large media markets. In the end, adding those teams would probably represent a net loss for the existing conference members, as you would be adding 5 more members to split tv revenue between without significantly expanding the conference's media presence.

For better or for worse, Texas has both Dallas and Houston, and is probably the most football-crazy state in the country. Add in Denver, Oklahoma City, Austin, and San Antonio, and it's easy to see why the PAC-10 is considering these schools.

Not to mention the quality of football teams (as football is the moneymaker of college sports). This even from someone who thinks that the undefeated Broncos and Utes of recent years should have been considered national champions, for what it's worth. Boise State, BYU, and Utah are absolutely legitimate. But Fresno's biggest claim to fame is that they almost beat USC in 2005, they're a good team for a non-BCS conference, but they're not on par with Utah, BYU, or BSU. I'm also not sure by what standard SDSU could be considered close to BCS caliber; they went 4-8 in 2009, and 2-10 in 2008, and in the lowly WAC. In good years, the first three teams can all be national contenders. But the quality of the 6 (football) teams we'd get from the Big 12 is simply better overall. It's even more of a gap for basketball.

So while those teams make more logical sense due to their locations, they don't really add all that much to the conference, and might actually be step backward when it comes to money, which is the driving force behind expansion in the first place.

"Every bit of the added revenue will get eaten by added flight expenses."

Seriously? Your math is way off.

Presumably, the eight schools in the Pac-16 West would play each other every year - that's seven games each. Then, they'd play three of the eight in the Pac-16 East annually -- two at home, one on the road; or vice versa.

25% of those Pac-16 East games would be against Arizona or Arizona State - teams they're already playing.

Over a ten-year period, in other words, you'd be talking about 15 games played in Texas, Oklahoma, or Colorado.

Would chartering 15 flights really cost $200 million? That's $13.3 million a flight. Between 65 scholarship players, coaching staff, administrators, etc - that's roughly 100 people. Not even first class costs $13,300 to Dallas.

Not to revist the entire UO-OSU rivalry here on Blue Oregon, but the whole "U of O has already sold its soul to Mr. Knight" meme is tired, worn out and frankly reeks of jealousy. Name one university - in the world - that would turn away a wealthy alum who wanted to contribute to the school. You won't find one. Phil Knight actually has allowed the U of O athletic department to operate entirely outside the university general fund - unlike OSU and its $6 million - now over $7 million with the sacking of LaVonda Wagner - athletic department deficit.

There are a lot of things to dislike about the professionalization of college football - and the disaster that is academic performance inside college football programs.

But if you're asking whether this conference expansion hurt the quality of the universities genereally, I think the answer is quite clear: It'll help the quality of our universities.

For starters, the athletic programs will immediately move from a deficit position to a budget surplus position. No more drawing from the general fund.

Second, the national exposure for the football programs will generate higher rates of applications - which will allow the academic quality of the student body to improve.

Third, with respect to the academic quality of the athletic programs themselves, there appears to be a direct correlation between the financial resources of the program and the academic performance of the athletes. Today's Oregonian, for example, notes that the Academic Performance Rating (APR) negatively impacts low-budget programs like Portland State who are unable to hire a flotilla of academic advisers and tutors.

So, all in all, I'd see this shift - and the money it brings into Oregon - as a net positive academically, for the athletics and the student body generally.

I agree with David about universities turning away donations. It simply doesn't happen.

Phil Knight has not only contributed to Oregon, but Stanford and OHSU both have received major gifts. Oregon has simply received the majority of Knight's money.

"U of O has already sold its soul to Mr. Knight"

Considering Nike was founded at the university and Knight is an alum, I say it pays homage.

How does it diminish the opportunity for I-AA programs to move up?

There's an awful lot of I-A programs west of the Rockies that would move up into the PAC-10 before we'd be talking about I-AA programs.

And the thing holding back I-AA programs from moving up to I-A isn't a lack of space in I-A conferences. Anybody can move up when they're ready. Western Kentucky moved up just a couple of years ago.

"Moreover, some of the real losers will ultimately be the student athletes playing minor sports in the schools left out of the football/TV marriages, as those sports programs will face cuts or outright elimination."

How exactly would that work?

If Oregon State continues on pace with a $6-7 million annual deficit, you can bet that minor sports will get cut.

If, however, that turns into an annual $12-15 million surplus, I don't imagine they'll be cutting any minor sports. Might even add some.