September 23rd, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^

Desirable destination for travelers without any homefield advantage.  They'd probably have to upgrade Sam Boyd Stadium if they want to rake in the big bucks though.  Since I just live a couple hours away, this sounds like a great idea to me.

On the other hand, it looks very likely that they are going to do something ridiculously dumb with the divisional alignment.


September 23rd, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^

This is not a good idea. The Pac 10 is not close together like the Big Ten. If the game was at any school outside of LA, Frisco or UW, it would be a nightmare. Getting to any of the 0regon schools or WSU is tough, the Arizona schools are far unless the opponent is UCLA or USC, Salt Lake is far and boring and Boulder is half a country away.

Vegas should happen. They could charge an arm and a leg for tickets and still fill up whatever stadium they play it in.

EDIT: supposed to be in response to the guy who suggested campus sites.


September 23rd, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^

Ok Vegas, but where?  Sam Boyd wouldn't be able to hold more than 40k.

The obvious choice is the Rose Bowl.  It isn't going to be an NFL venue, can hold as many fans as want to attend, is in a somewhat central location, and is a classic college football venue with tons of history.  

When the 49ers build a new stadium, consider moving it there.  Until then, Rose Bowl is where it should be.


September 23rd, 2010 at 1:01 PM ^

The stadium itself is gorgeous, but there are serious problems with any/every game held there.  The venue is isolated away from the center of Pasadena (which is isolated from the rest of LA).  Parking is limited in/around the stadium.  Half the fans would have to park in town and ride busses over to the stadium.  Anyone who has had to take a leak during a game there also knows there are issues with the facility itself.

While this makes sense for the Rose Bowl (with the boost of history/tradition and the fact that people are already in town for the parade), I don't see any reason to do it for a conference championship game that is basically just a corporate money grab. 

If they want to hold the thing in LA, this would be the only place to do it:


MI Expat NY

September 23rd, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^

I'm not sure the 40K is really that much of a problem.  The championship game earns its money in tv rights, as much as, if not more than the ticket sales.  Plus the Pac 10 fan bases aren't exactly known for their travel prowess.  rotating the game around, there's always going to be a risk of significant travel to make the game.  What happens if you have the game in LA and it's Stanford/Oregon or you have the game in San Francisco and it's Arizona/Utah?  Then you're going to end up with a stadium that looks like an ACC championship. 

Because the Pac-12 isn't the SEC or the Big 10 in terms of support, they have one of two options: play at the homefield of the team with the best record, or hold it at a neutral location in a venue they're sure to sell out/fill adequately.  I'm not sure cities like Eugene, Pullman (Ha!), Corvalis, etc. would be capable of hosting a big event on a week's notice.  Therefore Vegas is the best option with L.A. being a close second on the theory that even if teams don't travel well, surely the entire Pac 12 has a decent alumni base in L.A.

MI Expat NY

September 23rd, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^

With additional seating, the attendance for one of the Las Vegas bowls was 44K (wikipedia... source for EVERYTHING). 

I think you might be overselling the PAC 10's ability to fill up a neutral stadium on one week's notice.  It seems to me, the most you can ever get is about five-six schools within reasonable driving distance of the neutral location.  The Oregon schools are out of reach for anything south of San Francisco, The Washington Schools are out of reach for anything outside Washington, the LA schools could do almost anything besides Washington, the Arizona/Utah schools can't drive any farther than LA and Colorodo is pretty much away from everything.  This is exactly the problem that has doomed the ACC championship game when Miami and FSU crapped out just after the merger.  Pac 10 teams draw on average 54K per game, ACC teams draw 51K.  This is significantly less than SEC, Big 10 and Big 12.  With those numbers, I don't see why the Pac 10 can expect to draw better than the ACC for a championship game if they don't get lucky and have a local team in it.

MI Expat NY

September 23rd, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^

It still comes down to travel distance.  Last year the ACC had two of their bigger fan bases in the game (Clemson and GT) and still only had 42K at the game.  Both schools had 7.5+ hr trips by car to the game.  Doable, but not exactly easy.  With the Pac 10 you could never do better than 4-6 teams within that same driving distance (barely) and if the division breakdown is geographical, California and Arizona schools in one division, you can't pick a location where at least one of the schools doesn't have a longer drive than 10 hours. 

I do think if you average them out, the fan bases of Pac 10 schools are larger, but not by a whole lot.  Clemson, FSU, and Va. Tech are as big as any three you can name in the Pac 10. 

Championship games move tickets if fan bases are huge, the game is close to its participants, or the fan bases travel exceptionally well.  I'm not sure any of these traits applies to the Pac 10 more so than the ACC, or at least not enough more to make up for the extremely large geographic footprint. 

I say go with Vegas, sell less tickets but it'll be a sell out and look better on TV. 

MI Expat NY

September 23rd, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^

As for UOP stadium, it wouldn't be the worst choice.  I guess I should clarify that I'm not arguing that a neutral field would be a catastrophe, I'm only arguing that a small stadium wouldn't be the end of the world either. 

With UOP around 63K and within 6 hours of at least 4 schools, they would certainly have a decent shot at filling it most years, better than say the larger stadiums in LA if USC doesn't win its division or San Francisco, etc.  But the pac 10 would then run into a problem where the division with UW, WSU, UO, OSU, Utah, and UC (assuming that's how it breaks down) would complain about a yearly disadvantage. 

My final point is that Las Vegas would be about as central as you can get, would always sell out and avoid an ACC scene, and might be cheaper than renting an NFL stadium.  I can see a compelling argument.


September 23rd, 2010 at 5:52 PM ^

The ACC will always have issues because it just doesn't have many schools with large football fanbases.  Once you get past those three teams you named it drops off a cliff. Georgia Tech isn't even the most popular team in its own city.  I agree as far as being central goes Vegas is about as good as it gets, and they are in a tough spot geographically being so spread out and not having a plethora of appealing options.  That being said, something about a BCS conference playing its title game in a stadium that needs temporary seating to fit 40K is inherently bush-league, and the Pac-10 with its delusions of grandeur will ultimately go in a different direction, which to me should point them to Glendale, which would be better than playing in a half-filled Rose Bowl.

MI Expat NY

September 23rd, 2010 at 6:22 PM ^

Eh, I guess I just don't see much difference between UNC, NC State, Ga. Tech and Miami (who I know doesn't fill up an NFL stadium) and UCLA, Oregon, Oregon St., etc.  The west coast likes their football alright, but from everything I've heard, it's not nearly as passionate out there as Big 12, Big 10 and SEC country.  To me, that says they'll face the same struggles as the ACC. 

I get the bush league argument.  I would still be hesitant about trying to fill an NFL stadium every year.  maybe the best bet is to convince Las Vegas to upgrade the facility to say 55K, and assure them a 10 year contract as Pac 12 host. 


September 23rd, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^

Las Vegas is a terrible, terrible idea.

Hey, let's throw a bunch of 18-21 year old kids into essentially the most sin-filled place on Earth for an entire weekend, where people drink booze freely on the streets, prostitution is entirely legal, and millions of blackjack tables and slot machines are in walking distance.

We may see the first ever double forefeit when neither the players nor coaches show up for the game.

And let's not forget, let's not forget the cheerleaders.

Mustachioed Ge…

September 23rd, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^

You should probably look up stuff before you spout it off as fact. Prostitution is, in fact, not legal in Las Vegas. Outside the city limits yes but not in Las Vegas. Booze is not drunk openly either. We have the open liquor laws as anywhere else. I think it's ok on the strip in some areas but don't quote me.


September 23rd, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^

From recolection, even the strip technically has an open container ban but it is generally not enforced for two reasons, one, only the sidewalk on the road is public property, and there isn't much to be gained by arresting your tax base.


September 23rd, 2010 at 6:41 PM ^

Where are these players going? Into neighborhoods? Downtown? No. They'll head to The Strip.

I simply forgot prostitution is legal in Las Vegas namely because of those creepy dudes who slap flyers with naked women and phone numbers at you when you walk down The Strip. Honest mistake.

Second, I've walked down The Strip or sat outside a 7-11 obviously drinking beer, liquor, whatever.

I'm really not trying to come off like an ass here (and probably failing) but that first line is just so condescending namely because you ignored the entire point of my post and instead focused on the particulars.

I'm not some crazy uptight guy worried about 20 year old kids drinking and gambling because I did all that same stuff when I was 20. It just seems like a poor idea specifically because I did all that same stuff when I was 20.

Mustachioed Ge…

September 23rd, 2010 at 9:39 PM ^

Yeah sorry man. I'm from Las Vegas and sort of have this big brother mentality towards it. You know, the "it may be a gimmicky, downtrodden city (now) but its my gimmicky, downtrodden city" mentality. No coffee + headache = surly mustache.

Wolverine In Exile

September 23rd, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^

I'd be hell yes to Vegas. And while 40k sounds small for a football conference championship, you could artificially inflate demand by having it at a limited venue avoiding the ACC's problems when two "undesirable" teams play... plus, most of your revenue from the game is going to come from TV (as opposed to most bowl games where the local organizers get a significant amoutn of revenue from ticket sales), so I would think it a benefit to play the game in a packed stadium with noise as opposed to having to hide shots of 10k unsold seats.

Additionally, you know there'd be a hell of a lot more people going to Vegas for the game who don't have tickets (let's get ready to GAMMMMBBBLLLEEEE) than if it was at Seattle or San Fran or Tempe.. perhaps some extra juice could be squeezed for the conference by working out deals with the hotels in Vegas??? From Vegas's point of view, you'd be looking at getting a major draw during a relatively non-descript weekend between Thanksgiving and Christmas where it's highly likely one of the two teams will be a big money alumni base from either Los Angeles or San Fran/Oakland/Sillicon Valley. Unless you knew you were going to sell out the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum every year at $100/pop, I think attendance capacity is way overblown.


September 23rd, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^

I'd guess they'll end up rotating it between some of the NFL stadiums (SEA, OAK, SF, LA, SD, Phx, Denv).  If not, they should pick one in the Bay because its centrally located for all teams involved.

The Rose Bowl lacks appeal since there are regular season games AND the rose bowl already played there.  UCLA could play 10 home games in one year.

Seattle has a retractable-roof stadium so weather shouldn't really be an issue.

LV has no stadium that fits.

I'm not sure the campus concept works either.  OSU, WSU and perhaps others don't really have stadiums big enough for such an event. 


September 23rd, 2010 at 4:34 PM ^

a state is as much budget trouble as California is, is not going to give up a revenue generator like the pac-12 championship game to a state which does not even have a pac-12 school.


September 23rd, 2010 at 7:11 PM ^

I'm not sure it would be that much of a revenue generator for California.  If the game is in LA, most of the people attending the game will be people who live in California, maybe 10k out of staters, depending on who the opponent is.  Chances are, at least one of the teams will be from California anyway. 


September 23rd, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^

Vegas I think is a great opportunity

whats the seating capacity at Sam Boyd Stadium ?

Alot of sponserships could cover the cost of that game !

Tourist attractions !

San Diego, Seattle, Phoenix  seem like good options also

Phil Davison

September 23rd, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^

I'm all for a major sporting event in Vegas, and they held the NBA All-Star weekend there in 2007 but even that caused concern with some (David Stern) over the leagues image. The atmosphere would undeniably be electric but image-wise, too hard. College football should be about pageantry sure but not the glitz and glam of Las Vegas.



Been reading the site for years, but new to actually posting. But I needed to link this article before I forgot, so I decided to do it in the most out of the way place as possible. If someone wants to re-post and start some good old-fashioned ND bashing I'm all for it. This is the most irrational argument (excuse) I've ever heard. Were we this bad when we were losing? I don't think so.




September 23rd, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^

Vegas would be great if they had a stadium that sat more than 40,000 people. As it is, they should just rotate it between Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, LA and Phoenix.


September 23rd, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^

I disagree with Denver - it's a real hike for anyone other than the Buffs, and they won't be in the title game any time soon.  So a Denver game would either be empty, or total home field advantage for Colorado.  Seattle's not great either, considering the game would be in December, but the distance part is less a problem (though still a problem for many teams). 


September 23rd, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^

Assuming they go geographic and put the Washington, Oregon and Rocky Mountain schools in one division, it would be advantageous to alternate between a stadium in that area and one in the California/Arizona division, no? Seattle and Denver are the only viable options, unless Portland builds a stadium at some point in the future.


September 23rd, 2010 at 6:29 PM ^

OK, let's assume they go geographic with the divisions.  The year the game is in Denver, no school is within driving distance, even Utah is over 500 miles through the Rockies in December.  Every other school is a solid plane ride away.  This would kill attendance. 

You would either need have it in Seattle every year, pick college stadiums, or just have it at a central location every year.  Even the teams in the "Northern" division would prefer something like San Fran over Denver.  Most all of those schools can get to SF by car.


September 23rd, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^

This thread makes me wonder - why doesn't Las Vegas build a stadium?  People love going to Vegas, and if they could get a better bowl match-up, the Pac 10 champ game and they could host a big non-conference game every year, like a Pac 10 - Big 12 match-up.  A few major events like that would pay for the stadium, the rest of the year they could host other events there, concerts, various other football and soccer games, maybe a preseason football game or something, that sort of thing.

You'd think that would be pretty successful.  No doubt if the Pac 10 champ game is there, most of my buddies and I would head up there for it, and none of us are Pac 10 alumni.  People like having an excuse to go to Vegas.


September 23rd, 2010 at 7:10 PM ^

I know UNLV isn't a powerhouse, but I'm sure they would be willing to kick in some cash if they were getting matching funds from the Pac 12, bowl folks, corporate sponsors, etc.  It seems like there are a lot of people there to share the costs and it wouldn't take too much dough to get to 50-60 thousand seats with some improvements in quality.