Howdy. This weekend was certainly an interesting one, but not because anything in particular happened, but just that I finally realized something that I know I should probably I've picked up on years ago: My generation has grown up. More specifically I, along with all of my friends, have grown up.

I'll get back to you when I figure out when the hell that actually happened.

It just seems that every phone call I have, email I get, or correspondence in general, is far more real than anything has been previously. Every decision has lasting effects.

Which is why I am going to change gears today and write about something a little less serious (in the grand scheme at least - these people take it very seriously): Pac-10 expansion.

But first, congrats to Sandra Bullock, winner of Best Actress for her amazing performance in my favorite movie of the year, The Blind Side.

At the outset something very important should be noted: this has no bearing on the real world, whatsoever. While some may say that individual games and championships and such are incredibly important, they are wrong. I coached sports for years, worked in them as well. After a game ends, win or lose, it has no bearing on your life in any way. The next day, you will not be upset or overjoyed (unless you live in New Orleans...), but just go back to living the life you live. When talking about athletics at any level, I feel like it is important to take them in context: they aren't real.

But they are fun to talk about.

If you've been paying attention recently, you have heard that the Big Ten has been considering expansion. Now, confusing as it may seem, the Big Ten actually has 11 teams, hence the hidden number in the logo.

There is a rule that will not allow a football conference championship game if your league does not have 12 teams, which is why only half of the Big Six conferences have one (Big-12, SEC, ACC). The question then becomes, does the league add one, three or even five teams? Then who are they? Texas? Pitt? Nebraska? Surely they have all been considered.

What this leads to is the league I actually care about, the Pac-10, with the ball in their court to stop a power shift completely to the east side of the country. Which begs the question: should the Pac-10 expand?

Gut reaction? No.

First though, let me tell you why it should and who it should get.

The conference needs money, just like everyone else does. The fact is that USC is the only real money-maker, being in Los Angeles and also being good. The Seattle market is also a good one, but with UW being so bad the last few years, it can be tough. Hopefully, for the good of the conference, that changes. But right now the conference is not even close to some of the other power conferences in income.

In addition, the conference needs another marquee program, preferably off of the West Coast and most definitely in another good television market. Blame that one on the Huskies again, since their demise has meant that only one program in the has consistently been good.

In my estimation, that leaves only one other school in the mix: Texas.

Back when Texas joined the Big-12, the biggest question mark for the school was academics. Had the desire to be in a conference with high-standard, world-class research universities been less, the Longhorns would probably be in the SEC and no one else in the country would actually compete in football.

So recognize how well Texas fits in with the power research universities in the Pac-10. Seven of the 10 schools are incredible high-ranked powers in academics, and Arizona State, Oregon State and Washington State aren't exactly community colleges.

Add in that Texas commands the Dallas/Fort Worth market and it is a huge win for the Pac-10.

Along with Texas would come Texas A&M. No way one would move without the other. The Longhorns will already have to play one huge non-conference game, against Oklahoma, it would help to play another.

The addition of Texas instantly makes the Pac-10 at least the second most powerful conference in America, while I actually think the domino effect would make it the most powerful. Here's why:

I don't think the Pac-10 would stop at two teams. If you're going to shatter years of the tradition that has made the conference so great, why not go all in? Bring along the big four from the state of Texas, including Texas Tech and Baylor as well. And while you're at it, throw in TCU and another school to be named, Nebraska anyone?

What isn't going to happen is any combination of Utah, BYU or Boise State. No way, no how.

The way this works is that you take all of the Texas schools, plus the still TBD program, and throw them in a division with Arizona and Arizona State. Then you have the original Pac-8 in another division. Play all seven teams in your division every year, plus two cross-over, and three non-conference. Every school could schedule the Portland State's of the world in non-conference because every in conference game would be so tough.

Not only does this make sense for all of the factors already mentioned, but it opens the state of Texas to every team in the conference for recruiting. Another instant positive factor.

If this were to happen, college football would be fundamentally shifted and the Big-12 would cease to exist.

Here is the problem with all of this though and I already mentioned it: tradition.

The Pac-10 is, hands down, the Ivy League of power athletics. The Conference of Champions is full of tradition and history, having not changed in some 30 years. Programs like Cal and Washington are charter members, from nearly 100 years ago. No conference has many overall championships or academic reputations. No conference is even close.

Membership to the conference is akin to being let into an extremely elite club. That is why Texas fits, but not any of the other schools I named. There are no religious affiliations (see ya, TCU) and the conference is notoriously harsh on rules violators (Baylor would not have a basketball program right now, after one player shot another).

I very much enjoy the round-robin style of the basketball schedule, as well as playing every other team in the conference in football. It builds real rivalries, as does the close proximity of the schools. Add a Texas and a road trip just got a lot longer. And, maybe most importantly, it would apparently take all ten presidents to agree in order for expansion to pass.

Finally, this would be a football decision through and through. The conference needs no help in anything else, with more national championships in just about every other sport.

Problem is, women's softball isn't paying the bills.

So, should the Pac-10 expand? No. Will it? Its survival may require it. Here are some other, possibly more informative takes: The Orlando Sentinel, Bleacher Report.

Now remember, this is fun to talk about, but, even though a ton of money is involved, it most definitely is not life or death. I'm talking to you, U.S. Congress.

Links:

• A piece that shows just how much U.S. business is funding Iran, yet another reason enviros say it is time to cut oil dependence.
• You have to love when a member of Congress admits he was wrong, then blames the consequences on someone else. Eric Massa is set to resign this week.
• Paul Krugman and I think alike where the current state of partisanship are concerned. These two parties are living on different planets right now.
• Maureen Dowd has gone international recently - this time with an interesting look from Saudi Arabia.
• Lastly, still my favorite fundraiser. Remember watching as a kid.