Who is Sponsoring World Cup Teams?

Though this is not directly related to college sports, it is somewhat related. There are always discussions about whether a school should stay with a particular company or switch to a rival one. This was discussed here in regards to Adidas schools. So who are Adidas teams? Nike teams? Puma teams? or anything else for that matter. It is time to examine who is the dominating apparel provider in the world of (not-American) football.
Adidas:
France, Spain, South Africa, Argentina, Mexico, Greece, Paraguay, Germany, Denmark, Slovakia, Japan, Nigeria

Nike:
United States, Slovenia, Brazil, Portugal, Holland, Serbia, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand

Puma:
Algeria, Switzerland, Uruguay, Italy, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cameroon


Others:
Honduras, North Korea, Chile, England

Clearly, it is a three horse race between Adidas, Nike, and Puma as I mentioned above. Puma has a huge stronghold on the African continent as the only country which is not representing the German company is Nigeria, which is rocking the gear of another German company (Adidas). As far as the two real giants go, the cake goes to Adidas in the world of football. As if having the rights to outfit referees and provide the official ball weren't enough, they are represented through 12 countries, compared to 9 of Nike.

It's (essentially) Official: Utah to Join the Pac

So it was announced earlier today that Utah will be the 12th member of the Pac-10 conference (or soon to be known as the Pac-12). Personally, this isn't that big of a deal because aside from a solid football team that has done well in the MWC and bowl games, and a basketball team that was solid in the late 90's, there is nothing much to it. They have some other nice programs and what not, but that aside, big deal. Plus Utah is just an absolute boring place. But hey, at least they hate BYU, and so do I. That being said, the big question here is how the conference will not divide itself to accommodate all the teams. You have to go with a North-South alignment because East-West would mean one eight team division and a four team division. The big question with a North-South division is who goes in the North and who goes in the South. Do the Bay Area schools go with the South to keep California together, or do Utah and Colorado and their bad weather and actual Northern location go in the North? Personally, I would like to see the California schools stay together and play in a division with the Arizona schools. Those are all much closer together and culturally make sense too. And again, they are closer geographically. The new ski schools should play with the other cold climate schools in Oregon and Washington because it will save on travel and make for a lot of cold games that no one wants to actually play in if you are for California or Arizona. I also saw somewhere an alignment that would split each natural rivalry which is probably insane idiotic and does not make any sense from a fiscal and logistic stand point. However, I am not Larry Scott or any of the ADs of the member schools, so we shall see what happens. In the meanwhile, we can all just wait and write and read more banter about this.

Pac-16? Not Happenin'

First, I am back! These past couple of months were filled with so much writing for school that I got so disillusioned that my blogging had to take a backseat. Either way, it is summer again and time to return to blogging about the happenings of college athletics. For weeks now, the raging topic of conversation has been conference expansion. We've all heard about it. School A will bolt conference X and will join conference Y thus leaving conference X is utter shambles. A, X, and Y have taken on many names recently and while some of these rumors have been true, many have been proven to just be a tease. What's hilarious is that many rumors that have been about East Coast schools, such as some ACC ones jumping to SEC, have taken a back seat to West Coast rumors. I'm shocked no one has mentioned how this is the first time ever that there's a reverse East Coast bias going on in the mainstream media. Since this blog is all about the West Coast we will examine the A, X, and Y pertaining to this side of the Mississippi.
The rumors that came to fruition last week when Colorado accepted the Pac-10 invitation to join its conference while Nebraska bolted on the old Big-12, for the new Big-12 (formerly known as Big-10 with 11 teams). This was believed to be a huge step towards turning both the Big-10 and Pac-10 into 16 team megaconferences. However, at least for the Pac-10 that will not happen. Today Texas turned down the Pac-10 invitation to join its conference, and Oklahoma and Texas A&M announced that they will stay put and try to keep the Big-12 together, as a 10 team conference. Personally, as a UCLA and Pac-10 enthusiast, I am happy about this. It for sure would have been cool to play those guys on a regular basis, but realistically, having a gigantic conference isn't that great. It creates tons of imbalance and weird scheduling problems and a lot more travel than the current format. Plus, having two eight team conferences seems pretty silly. With regards to recruiting, sure, it could have helped land a few top Texas prospects, but who's to say that the Plains schools won't come to California and nab a few prep stars as well? Also, some Pac-10 schools are already scheduled to play schools from the Lone Star state, so no big deal. In the end, the conference will probably stay with eleven or maybe nab one more (lets hope its a good catch) and hopefully put on a newly formed championship game.

Also, can the Big XII and Big 10 just like swap logos or something? Seems to be the simplest solution to me.