In choosing divisions for their new 12-team league, the Pac-10 had the choice of the more typical "geographic model", which the SEC and Big 12 use, and the "zipper model" that the ACC uses.

While the SEC and Big 12 geographical models have been more successful in terms of marketing and revenue, the ACC's "zipper model" appealed to Pac-10 schools who wanted to be guaranteed games with UCLA and USC for recruiting purposes.

The Pac-10 considered the needs and interests of the Pacific Northwest schools in the Pac-10 and - surprise - chose the option better for marketing and revenue.

Even though the ACC's experience with the "zipper model" has been underwhelming (no one knows which team is in which division or why) is a factor, and the ACC only adopted that model for a bunch of reasons that don't affect the Pac-10 (such as the need to put conference heavyweights FSU and Miami in separate divisions, and also to do their best to preserve vital basketball rivalries).

Further, it is probably good for the Pac-10 to not have to revolve around Southern California the way that the Big 12 revolves around Texas. Finally, as the Pac-10 North schools were more than willing to stick Arizona and Arizona State in a division with the Big 12 schools, they have no basis for squawking now that the shoe is going to be stuck on the other foot.

They still have Cal and Stanford in their conference for recruiting purposes, and receive the benefits of winning a division title without having to outperform the USC machine to do it. Not having to play Texas and Oklahoma every year got Missouri and Kansas State a long way. The Pac-10 North schools should realize the same benefits.

What about recruiting? Well, the Pac-10 North schools should make non-conference games the focus of their recruiting strategy. The Pac-10 has long bragged about how tough their out of conference schedules are.

However, their tough scheduling hasn't been strategic, and they haven't received any benefit from it whatsoever. For instance, how did Oregon State benefit from losing to Penn State and Utah in 2008?

How did Oregon benefit from either losing two in a row to Boise or winning two in a row against Purdue?

How has Washington benefited from their crazy non-conference scheduling (Notre Dame, LSU, BYU, Hawai'i, Oklahoma) the past few years?

This is not to say that the Pac-10 North should join the SEC and Big 10 in buying victories against cupcakes out of conference. What they should do is schedule as many road games in the big recruiting markets as they can, to get TV and media coverage in those states and build a recruiting profile.

Further, instead of a random approach where they are in one state or region one season and a totally different one the next, Pac-10 North schools should pick a state or region to focus on and schedule as many games with schools in those regions as possible.

Am I suggesting that Oregon State and Washington State sign a contract to play 10 consecutive road games against the Texas Longhorns and Florida Gators? Well ... no. You actually want to win as many of these road games as possible. How about SMU and UCF instead? Now you're talking!

The Pac-10 North should regularly play mid-majors in the prime recruiting states and regions like Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida. The mid-majors will like it because normally they get stuck with 2 road trips for 1 return trip, or 3 road trips for 2 home games. Any major school that offers them home-and-home dates, or 1 home game with no return trip they will gladly accept.

The Pac-10 North schools should use this to their advantage by scheduling a series of road games against several mid-major teams in an area, to work the mid-majors in a particular region to pick up wins and recruits. This will be arduous and expensive, but the new revenue coming in along with the added publicity and recruits from previously untapped areas will pay off in the long run.

Playing road games with no return trip promised helped then-independent Miami and FSU build their programs in the 1970s and 1980s. This system also benefited mid-majors like Utah, Boise State, Louisville and TCU . So, the results for a Pac-10 team ought to be even quicker.

The key is instead of choosing opponents by whoever gives you the best terms financially (which appears to be how Pac-10 schools currently schedule), a Pac-10 North team has to "work" the mid-majors in a certain area to gain recruits over time.

Oregon State, for example, got the Rodgers brothers out of Texas. While I don't recommend trips to TCU, playing at UTEP, SMU, North Texas, Houston and Rice would bring a lot more talent like that to Corvallis.

Washington State and their limited travel budget would be best served playing California mid-majors like San Jose State, Fresno, and San Diego State.

Oregon could target Florida schools like FAU, FIU and the aforementioned UCF. Washington could play MAC schools like Ohio, Toledo, Bowling Green and Akron. Plus there are schools like Southern Miss (Mississippi), Temple (Pennsylvania), Troy (Alabama), the Louisiana schools in the Sun Belt and WAC, and what have you.

The beauty of it is that no one can accuse you of scheduling cupcakes and it does not hurt you in the BCS standings. The reason is that these are all FBS schools. For instance, Florida actually benefited in the BCS standings by playing Troy from the Sun Belt, because Troy went 9-4 and won that conference.

The same is true of the ACC and SEC teams who played 10-3 Middle Tennessee State from the Sun Belt (except for Maryland, who lost to MTSU). Also, who is going to make these "cupcake" accusations? Big 10, Big 12 and SEC schools who play those same programs plus I-AA schools?

So, there is nothing to be lost in terms of respect or the BCS computers by playing the same mid-majors that Texas (Rice, Wyoming and Florida Atlantic in 2010, Louisiana-Monroe, Wyoming, UTEP and UCF in 2009). 

Hopefully the Pac-10 will make this workable by dropping the number of conference games from 9 to 8. In that scenario, in the ideal year a team like Oregon State (picking them at random) would play UTEP and Toledo on the road while hosting Ball State and Houston at home, and get about 8 or 9 good recruits from Texas and Ohio. Going a probable 4-0 in non-conference games against FBS foes is an added incentive.

So is the publicity you would receive in their local media by becoming a mainstay. If you want the TV stations and newspapers in Florida to notice you, play a bunch of road games against UCF, FAU and FIU over a long period of time. They would go from being unaware and apathetic to your existence to selling Washington State or Oregon State paraphernalia in their sporting goods stores.

That's the road map. It is a wonder more athletics departments aren't trying this already, because it helped many independent and formerly lower profile programs build themselves up in the 1980s and 1990s. It is an excellent method for winning games and getting players (especially the 3 and 4 star ones who receive offers from but aren't highly prioritized by the local powerhouses in their areas).

The Pac-10 North needs to step up and try it.