It's over. - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: It's over. (/thread-24315.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: It's over. (/thread-24315.html)
RE: It's over. - chrisk - 08-04-2023
(08-04-2023, 05:08 PM)82lsju Wrote: the PR team is now on the case...nothing to fear...
Quote:We are aware of the University of Oregon and University of Washington's intended departure from the Pac-12 Conference. Our primary focus at this time is analyzing the available options and making the best decisions for Stanford and our student-athletes. We remain optimistic about Stanford's athletics future and remain committed to pursuing excellence in college athletics.
Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Stanford University President
Bernard Muir, Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics
https://gostanford.com/news/2023/8/4/stanford-athletics-statement-on-conference-realignment.aspx
Statement from Cal
https://www.on3.com/college/california-golden-bears/news/cal-officials-statement-oregon-washington-departures-pac-12-conference-realignment-big-ten/
RE: It's over. - GK3 - 08-04-2023
(08-04-2023, 06:19 PM)chrisk Wrote:(08-04-2023, 06:09 PM)vataha Wrote: TV money raises the tide and lifts all boats. W/out decent TV money this severely damages ALL sports, not just football. IF we fall into worst case scenario this could change our university culture. Stanford is not the same without a thriving sports culture befitting of such a fine university.
You don’t need $60M/year to operate a big time athletic department. At some point, the money goes to excessive salaries and over-the-top facilities.
Stanford is getting far less than that now and is doing reasonably well financially.
When the University is run by a BoT, President and Provost who think athletics is immoral and illegal, what else do you expect. We have all the wrong people in the right places at the wrong time.
RE: It's over. - pefloresjr - 08-04-2023
Even though I am unsure of where I want Stanford to go in terms of the pay-to-play college sports landscape (it's not just football and men's hoops being impacted), I feel like August 4, 2023 should be declared Stanford Sports International Doom Scrolling Day. I'm going to finally stop and have a bourbon and watch an uplifting noir film. In A Lonely Place seems like a good option tonight.
Cheers,
Pete F.
RE: It's over. - oman - 08-04-2023
Yeah, the idea that we "maintain our independence" by not participating is bizarre. We are tools of capitalism and the government - that's how we recruit non-athletes.
Not sure how being part of a big conference/media is even a blip in the overall scheme of our very not-independent school.
(08-04-2023, 08:29 PM)pefloresjr Wrote: I'm going to finally stop and have a bourbon and watch an uplifting noir film. In A Lonely Place seems like a good option tonight.
Cheers,
Pete F.
Not sure you and I have the same definition of uplifting.
That being said, I'm an old school DVD by mail guy, and Netflix cancelling their less popular service and the Pac12 cancelling it's less popular conference makes for a hard year.
RE: It's over. - Giants - 08-04-2023
A couple years ago, there were 65 schools playing at the Power 5 level.
Today, there are still 65 schools playing at the (now) Power 4 level.
The difference?
IN - BYU, Central Florida, Houston, Cincinnati
OUT - Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, Washington State
Wow……..
RE: It's over. - chrisk - 08-04-2023
(08-04-2023, 09:12 PM)Giants Wrote: A couple years ago, there were 65 schools playing at the Power 5 level.
Today, there are still 65 schools playing at the (now) Power 4 level.
The difference?
IN - BYU, Central Florida, Houston, Cincinnati
OUT - Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, Washington State
Wow……..
The 4 Pac-12 schools are still playing a Power 5 schedule in 2023. We have no idea what kind
of teams they will have on their schedules in 2024. Stanford still has TCU, Cal Poly, and ND on its
non-conference schedule. They could play the other 3 schools. That would leave 6 openings on the
schedule. It may be tough to schedule most of them with Power 4 schools, but it may be possible.
RE: It's over. - Sam Leopold - 08-04-2023
This whole conference realignment thing has taken on a strong flavor of Game of Thrones. USC and UCLA leaving for the Big Ten last year was like the assassination of Renly. The events of the past week or two have taken us through the Battle of Blackwater Bay...... culminating in the Red Wedding that has unfolded today.
The Pac-12, of course, is House Stark during the first three seasons.
RE: It's over. - 76lsjumb - 08-04-2023
(08-04-2023, 07:25 PM)chrisk Wrote:(08-04-2023, 05:08 PM)82lsju Wrote: the PR team is now on the case...nothing to fear...
Quote:We are aware of the University of Oregon and University of Washington's intended departure from the Pac-12 Conference. Our primary focus at this time is analyzing the available options and making the best decisions for Stanford and our student-athletes. We remain optimistic about Stanford's athletics future and remain committed to pursuing excellence in college athletics.
Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Stanford University President
Bernard Muir, Jaquish & Kenninger Director of Athletics
https://gostanford.com/news/2023/8/4/stanford-athletics-statement-on-conference-realignment.aspx
Statement from Cal
https://www.on3.com/college/california-golden-bears/news/cal-officials-statement-oregon-washington-departures-pac-12-conference-realignment-big-ten/
Well, at least we get to see what an Athletics Department ChatGPT statement looks like…
RE: It's over. - Canalejas - 08-04-2023
(08-04-2023, 09:36 PM)Sam Leopold Wrote: This whole conference realignment thing has taken on a strong flavor of Game of Thrones. USC and UCLA leaving for the Big Ten last year was like the assassination of Renly. The events of the past week or two have taken us through the Battle of Blackwater Bay...... culminating in the Red Wedding that has unfolded today.
The Pac-12, of course, is House Stark during the first three seasons.
Oh boy, now you've made me sad about two very disappointing endings.
RE: It's over. - Branner77 - 08-04-2023
Somewhere Bob Murphy and Ed MacAulay are drowning their sorrows. Probably at the Oasis in the heavens.
RE: It's over. - old spanish trail - 08-04-2023
The Board of Trustees of all the moving schools met in a nano minute to determine the future. Anyone hear anything about our Board doing anything? Muir appears to be his passive self, and it's hard to see the Pres taking an interest given his future.
bigstef.allan@gmail.com - Chupacabra - 08-05-2023
They’ve been playing at a mid major level in the $ sports for a while. If they’re playing at that level then think of the recruiting advantages Stanford will have over the competition. It was great playing for titles but questionable that is a possibility anymore. More fun to win than go 3-9.
(08-04-2023, 03:34 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(08-04-2023, 01:19 PM)Chupacabra Wrote: Now that we're down to a Pac 4, there is no conference anymore. Without any apparent interest in joining one of the power conferences, it looks likely to the Mountain West. Stanford is now a mid-major.
Maybe that's good.
What's good about it?
RE: It's over. - StanfordMatt - 08-05-2023
Honest question - what makes anyone think we’d win at football at the mid-major level? Would we still fund the program at current levels and maintain the same attractiveness to recruits as a Mountain West school? Doubtful. More likely is that we’d end up as the Rice of the MWC. I’ve attended Rice games and that would be a hard pass for me.
I’d rather drop football than play football in the Mountain West. Forgoing the $6 million payout from the MWC for media rights wouldn’t even make a material difference in terms of funding other sports.
RE: It's over. - chrisk - 08-05-2023
(08-04-2023, 11:57 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: The Board of Trustees of all the moving schools met in a nano minute to determine the future. Anyone hear anything about our Board doing anything? Muir appears to be his passive self, and it's hard to see the Pres taking an interest given his future.
Stanford’s preference apparently was to keep the PAC-12 together. That would have taken a $30M+ deal. Unlikely that Stanford could influence the size of the deal much by itself. Most other schools had an option in that range. Stanford did not have a $30M option.
RE: It's over. - fullmetal - 08-05-2023
(08-04-2023, 11:57 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: The Board of Trustees of all the moving schools met in a nano minute to determine the future. Anyone hear anything about our Board doing anything? Muir appears to be his passive self, and it's hard to see the Pres taking an interest given his future.
I don't know how many of our Board are active sports fans, i.e. not fair weather fans. I assume the boards at other schools where sports are a higher priority definitely have fans, and they collectively hit the panic button at first available offer.
Kliavkoff and Stanford were betting on their brands: Pac-12 and Stanford, respectively. I think some of us who have worked in the real world know that carrying the Stanford name sometimes means you have to work extra hard to overcome any biases or jealousy from others. Muir and other brand-protection admins probably don't know that. You can't just wait for stuff to come to you.
I remember when Kliavkoff stated that he wasn't worried about conference defections. It's hindsight, but geez, what hubris.
RE: It's over. - gocard14 - 08-05-2023
How far should Stanford go to secure a big 10 spot?
If we offer to take a 10% revenue split increasing annually by 10% until full share does that move the needle? It's embarrassing to prostrate ourselves like that, but still is probably a better alternative then going independent or staying in the carcass of the pac. We also have the financials to take a short term loss to secure a long term future.
RE: It's over. - Maple Leaf - 08-05-2023
(08-05-2023, 11:48 AM)gocard14 Wrote: How far should Stanford go to secure a big 10 spot?
If we offer to take a 10% revenue split increasing annually by 10% until full share does that move the needle? It's embarrassing to prostrate ourselves like that, but still is probably a better alternative then going independent or staying in the carcass of the pac. We also have the financials to take a short term loss to secure a long term future.
The financials are an interesting question/issue, I agree with you that Stanford has the financials to make it work, but that assumes competent financial management.
RE: It's over. - Jamesy - 08-05-2023
(08-05-2023, 11:48 AM)gocard14 Wrote: How far should Stanford go to secure a big 10 spot?
If we offer to take a 10% revenue split increasing annually by 10% until full share does that move the needle? It's embarrassing to prostrate ourselves like that, but still is probably a better alternative then going independent or staying in the carcass of the pac. We also have the financials to take a short term loss to secure a long term future.
MWC only pays $6M per year so a 10% share of $50M with annual escalation would pay off quickly.
RE: It's over. - Goose - 08-05-2023
(08-05-2023, 11:56 AM)Maple Leaf Wrote:It also assumes the Big-10 is in a position to accept any more new members. I believe the absorption of the two planned new members and the two "hasty applicants" is going to strain quite a few resources and may well take a while (a few years) to work out. It also may not work out "well", and the Big-10 has to allow for that eventuality. For these reasons, I don't think Stanford has any shot at joining for the 2024 season. That may be fine, and it may be important to start negotiating now, but I think it unwise to assume that Stanford is actually "wanted" and that such negotiations will succeed. A Plan B and a Plan C need to be crafted, because uncertainty is going to persist for a while in college football.(08-05-2023, 11:48 AM)gocard14 Wrote: How far should Stanford go to secure a big 10 spot?
If we offer to take a 10% revenue split increasing annually by 10% until full share does that move the needle? It's embarrassing to prostrate ourselves like that, but still is probably a better alternative then going independent or staying in the carcass of the pac. We also have the financials to take a short term loss to secure a long term future.
The financials are an interesting question/issue, I agree with you that Stanford has the financials to make it work, but that assumes competent financial management.
RE: It's over. - cardcrimson - 08-05-2023
(08-05-2023, 11:38 AM)fullmetal Wrote: Kliavkoff and Stanford were betting on their brands: Pac-12 and Stanford, respectively. I think some of us who have worked in the real world know that carrying the Stanford name sometimes means you have to work extra hard to overcome any biases or jealousy from others. Muir and other brand-protection admins probably don't know that.
Incredibly perceptive and accurate comment. When I attended the Stanford of the East, we referred any mention of the school as "Dropping the H-bomb". Lots of preconceived notions, most of them sadly deserved.