Happy Friday. Welcome to the mailbag.
To the notes!
Caruso from Stamford, Connecticut, writes: With three of the Power 5 leagues at 14 teams, I propose we bring back to the table the expansion debate! The traditionalist in me wants to bring on Utah State and Colorado State to match up with their in-state rivals already in the Pac. This has an added bonus in that they've both been pretty good the past few years. Any chance this would ever have legs? I'm guessing in addition to the financial negotiations, there are some academic benchmarks and such that have to be met before schools can join the Pac, but just imagine all the joy brought to us Pac fans with mild OCD! Thoughts?
Ted Miller: What fans often miss about conference expansion discussions -- expansion that has happened or could happen -- is that it's not about "fan" things, such as picking up natural rivals or up-and-coming programs or even a program's tradition of success. It's about TV markets and revenue bottom lines.
When the discussion turns to expansion, the name of the school doesn't matter that much. It's the demographics and what those mean for the current members of the conference that's considering adding members. If Larry Scott had an expansion idea for the Pac-12 to become the Pac-14, the school presidents wouldn't particularly care about the name of the school or how it could upgrade the quality on the field. It's almost entirely about money.
I say almost entirely because academics do matter in the Pac-12, as do values. Any potential new member must be like-minded when it comes to institutional policies.
What would get the Pac-12 to raise an eyebrow anew to expanding is market share: Would adding Teams A and B add significant eyeballs in front of TVs, thereby making the conference significantly more valuable when the next TV contract comes up? And by "significantly," we mean that a share of revenue split 14 ways would significantly exceed that revenue split 12 ways.
That wouldn't happen with the addition of Utah State and Colorado State, nor would it happen with Fresno State, San Diego State nor Boise State.
It would with Texas. That was the big prize back during the expansion feeding-frenzy five years ago and it continues to be, but that flirtation seems at an end, at least in the near term.
In fact, without Texas, I don't see any Pac-12 expansion on the horizon, at least in our current conference/postseason model. While you never say never, there seems to be zero momentum behind the idea from Pac-12 decision-makers.
Scott from La Jolla, California, writes: I am wondering about your take on the ranking of the coaching jobs from worst to best? I thought it was a very interesting piece, and by and large very well done. A few quibbles, which likely reflect a (long) lifetime of being an interested watcher of West Coast football (at an increasingly late hour of the day, unfortunately): 1. I notice the "panel" of experts who had input have no direct experience out West; 2. Utah behind Kentucky, Texas Tech, Maryland, Pittsburgh and (less so) Iowa? How many BCS, etc., games have those schools been to in the last 20 years? 3. Arizona behind North Carolina? 4. Oregon tied with Texas A&M, and not even in the top 10. I read where Oregon is the winningest program in the country over the last 20 years. In that same time frame, they have six outright conference titles and one shared (with Washington and Oregon State). How many consecutive decades do you have to be good to have "tradition?"
Ted Miller: Obviously, these rankings are subjective and would vary year-to-year -- and widely so every five years.
Further, if you asked me to make a top-25 on Jan. 10 and then asked me to do one today -- and I couldn't look at my Jan. 10 list for reference -- the one I did today would be different. They subjectively would even strike at the pollsters on mercurial whims that have little to do with developments with the programs.
With Utah, it was ranked a high of 39 and a low of 58 among the five pollsters and finished 47th. I understand your quibble with that. Below Kentucky? Really?
Only Kentucky will pay Mark Stoops $3.25 million this season, and, despite his success, Kyle Whittingham "only" will get $2.6 million. Not to be mercenary, but...
Keep in mind this isn't a ranking of the programs. It's a ranking of the coaching jobs.
Further, of all those teams you note, only Pittsburgh played in front of fewer fans last year than Utah, while Kentucky, Texas Tech, Maryland and Pittsburgh certainly are in more fertile recruiting territory.
My rankings would have had Utah higher, and I believe Utah would have been higher if the Utes didn't have that bit of soap opera after the season between Whittingham and athletic director Chris Hill, which included a loss a both coordinators.
Yet I also think these rankings were pretty darn well done.
Ryan from Salt Lake City writes: How big of an impact do you see Kylie Fitts having for the Utes next season? He was a big recruit for UCLA a couple years ago and adds to an already dominant D-line for Utah.
Ted Miller: How big? I have no idea. We haven't seen enough of Fitts -- he had one tackle as a true freshman at UCLA in 2013 -- to know what he can do against Pac-12 competition.
We know he was a fairly highly rated recruit, good enough to be offered by both USC and UCLA, though his recruiting story was a bit tangled, as he flipped from the Trojans to the Bruins when USC belatedly told him they didn't have enough space for him to enroll early. We also know that he said -- tweeted -- that he left UCLA for personal and not football reasons.
My guess is he's going to have an impact next year, though he's got a fight on his hands to earn a starting slot. As you noted, the Utes look pretty strong -- as usual -- on the defensive line.
My general thought on first-year players -- freshmen and transfers -- is to take the Missouri approach: You've got to show me.
Gavin from Portland writes: Has there ever been an offseason when the Pac-10 blog has not named [Washington] a rising program, on the cusp of a breakout season, contender to challenge for North title?
Ted Miller: Yes.
And it's the Pac-12 blog.