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. - Jskass - 08-05-2023
agree -- same happened to me after attending the H for grad school.
RE: It's over. - old spanish trail - 08-05-2023
(08-05-2023, 01:03 PM)Goose Wrote:(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.
Last eve, an old friend in Memphis, who is a gigantic Tenn fan and gigantic sports fan in general, texted me re his disappointment over the recent developments. He has always admired Stanford from afar and hoped his kids would be interested in attending. I replied that it's a sad day when the winner of more national championships by far than any other school is left standing at the starting gate. He replied, "what a great stat. I didn't know that." If he doesn't know that, nobody does.
Yesterday Sports Center noted that Stanford "has the most dynamic sports program top to bottom in the country." But, nobody knows. I've always thought Stanford a bit shy about promoting its superior program and it has come back to bite. Nobody likes a braggadocio, but silence is not a good option.
I know money is the driver, but why wouldn't the Big presidents want to claim the most prestigious univ in big time sports, which also happens to be the overall c'ship winner as one of its own.
RE: It's over. - ca245 - 08-05-2023
Another factor is how long our coaches in WSoc, MSoc, and WVBB will hang around if we go for a PAC-4/(something) conference. They would seem to find the competition less than desirable and may be tempted to bolt for the BIG or SEC.
RE: It's over. - fullmetal - 08-05-2023
(08-05-2023, 01:18 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(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.
You gotta scrap to get things done. Look at Brett Yormark. If you're not the king, you gotta move faster. Was he beholden to the Big 12 presidents? Maybe. But maybe he had a frank conversation with them about how quickly decisions needed to be made and how much trust they had to invest in him. Kliavkoff could have been hamstrung by the Pac-12 presidents, and if so, he should have convinced them of the necessity for trust, quicker action, and some degree of autonomy.
https://www.si.com/college/byu/football/brett-yormark-reportedly-beat-out-the-acc-to-land-more-pac-12-schools
RE: It's over. - GK3 - 08-05-2023
(08-05-2023, 02:54 PM)fullmetal Wrote:(08-05-2023, 01:18 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(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.
You gotta scrap to get things done. Look at Brett Yormark. If you're not the king, you gotta move faster. Was he beholden to the Big 12 presidents? Maybe. But maybe he had a frank conversation with them about how quickly decisions needed to be made and how much trust they had to invest in him. Kliavkoff could have been hamstrung by the Pac-12 presidents, and if so, he should have convinced them of the necessity for trust, quicker action, and some degree of autonomy.
https://www.si.com/college/byu/football/brett-yormark-reportedly-beat-out-the-acc-to-land-more-pac-12-schools
After Aug 31 neither our former Provost or MTL should be drawing paychecks from Stanford.
RE: It's over. - chrisk - 08-05-2023
(08-05-2023, 03:13 PM)GK3 Wrote:(08-05-2023, 02:54 PM)fullmetal Wrote:(08-05-2023, 01:18 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(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.
You gotta scrap to get things done. Look at Brett Yormark. If you're not the king, you gotta move faster. Was he beholden to the Big 12 presidents? Maybe. But maybe he had a frank conversation with them about how quickly decisions needed to be made and how much trust they had to invest in him. Kliavkoff could have been hamstrung by the Pac-12 presidents, and if so, he should have convinced them of the necessity for trust, quicker action, and some degree of autonomy.
https://www.si.com/college/byu/football/brett-yormark-reportedly-beat-out-the-acc-to-land-more-pac-12-schools
After Aug 31 neither our former Provost or MTL should be drawing paychecks from Stanford.
Drell was supposedly on board until her successor is named in fall quarter. But with an interim president beginning next month, maybe we will get an interim provost.
RE: It's over. - Softball Fan - 08-05-2023
IMO it's not over. Here is my prediction. By the end of the month rumors start ramping up about Stanford's conference destination. In September there will be an abundance of talk on sports talk shows about Stanford's possible negotiations. Some fall Stanford sports other than football may do well, perhaps very well. While Olympic sports don't move the needle much on media deals, the national prominence of some non-football teams will get attention.
My sport is WVB. On every televised PAC-12 network and ESPN game the commentators will be talking about where Stanford's WVB team will be playing next year. They always talk about academics which even annoys me sometimes. I think B1G and other conference presidents/administrators will take another look at Stanford for reasons beyond the immediate football status. Will they have some influence on future decisions of their conference?
RE: It's over. - norcard10 - 08-05-2023
(08-05-2023, 01:51 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(08-05-2023, 01:03 PM)Goose Wrote:(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.
Last eve, an old friend in Memphis, who is a gigantic Tenn fan and gigantic sports fan in general, texted me re his disappointment over the recent developments. He has always admired Stanford from afar and hoped his kids would be interested in attending. I replied that it's a sad day when the winner of more national championships by far than any other school is left standing at the starting gate. He replied, "what a great stat. I didn't know that." If he doesn't know that, nobody does.
Yesterday Sports Center noted that Stanford "has the most dynamic sports program top to bottom in the country." But, nobody knows. I've always thought Stanford a bit shy about promoting its superior program and it has come back to bite. Nobody likes a braggadocio, but silence is not a good option.
I know money is the driver, but why wouldn't the Big presidents want to claim the most prestigious univ in big time sports, which also happens to be the overall c'ship winner as one of its own.
If stanford actually won or contended for championships recently in football or basketball, it wouldn't be in this position. Most of the country doesnt care about college water polo, gymnastics, golf, tennis, etc.
RE: It's over. - ADPinWDC - 08-05-2023
Just so you have it for reference... to review the teams played in the FCS Big Sky Conf
Here is the 2022 Sacremento State Hornets Football schedule (Coach: Troy Taylor)
Hornets went 12-0, into the Semifinal, and then lost the highest scoring game in FCS history, 66-63 in the last minute.
DATE CONFERENCE GAME OPPONENT LOCATION TIME/RESULT
9/3/2022 Utah Tech Sacramento, Calif. W 56-33 Recap
9/17/2022 at Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, IA W 37-21 Recap
9/24/2022 at Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colo. W 41-10 Recap
10/1/2022 * at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Calif. W 49-21 Recap
10/8/2022 * Northern Colorado Sacramento, Calif. W 55-7 Recap
10/15/2022 * at Eastern Washington Cheney, Wash. W 52-28 Recap
10/22/2022 * Montana Sacramento, Calif. W 31-24 OT Recap
10/29/2022 * Idaho Sacramento, Calif. / Hornet Stadium W 31-28 Recap
11/5/2022 * at Weber State Ogden, Utah W 33-30 Recap
11/11/2022 * at Portland State Hillsboro, Ore. W 45-17 Recap
11/19/2022 * UC Davis Sacramento, Calif. W 27-21 Recap
12/3/2022 Richmond Sacramento, Calif. W 38-31 Recap
12/9/2022 Incarnate Word Sacramento, Calif. L 63-66 Recap
Stanford can go 14-0 in the FCS.
And, not a bad travel schedule. [Tongue bitterly in cheek.]
RE: It's over. - Mick - 08-05-2023
Before it's over, let's listen to this one more time. Just ten years ago, Stanford (11-2) beat the Wisconsin Badgers (8-5) in the Rose Bowl.
Stanford Band 2013 Rose Bowl post game: All Right Now encore
RE: It's over. - Canalejas - 08-05-2023
(08-05-2023, 01:51 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Last eve, an old friend in Memphis, who is a gigantic Tenn fan and gigantic sports fan in general, texted me re his disappointment over the recent developments. He has always admired Stanford from afar and hoped his kids would be interested in attending. I replied that it's a sad day when the winner of more national championships by far than any other school is left standing at the starting gate. He replied, "what a great stat. I didn't know that." If he doesn't know that, nobody does.
Yesterday Sports Center noted that Stanford "has the most dynamic sports program top to bottom in the country." But, nobody knows. I've always thought Stanford a bit shy about promoting its superior program and it has come back to bite. Nobody likes a braggadocio, but silence is not a good option.
I know money is the driver, but why wouldn't the Big presidents want to claim the most prestigious univ in big time sports, which also happens to be the overall c'ship winner as one of its own.
The conference did like to style itself the Conference of Champions, on the strength of championships won by Stanford (1,) UCLA (2,) USC (3,) and even Cal (10.) But in most online spaces that moniker mostly earned us derision. Most people didn't actually know that it referred to all of the championships won. And they just pointed out the lack of hardware in football or men's hoops as proof that we were puffing out our chest for no reason at all.
So yes, more bragging might be good. But people have to actually get what we're talking about.
RE: It's over. - old spanish trail - 08-06-2023
(08-05-2023, 11:44 PM)Canalejas Wrote:(08-05-2023, 01:51 PM)old spanish trail Wrote: Last eve, an old friend in Memphis, who is a gigantic Tenn fan and gigantic sports fan in general, texted me re his disappointment over the recent developments. He has always admired Stanford from afar and hoped his kids would be interested in attending. I replied that it's a sad day when the winner of more national championships by far than any other school is left standing at the starting gate. He replied, "what a great stat. I didn't know that." If he doesn't know that, nobody does.
Yesterday Sports Center noted that Stanford "has the most dynamic sports program top to bottom in the country." But, nobody knows. I've always thought Stanford a bit shy about promoting its superior program and it has come back to bite. Nobody likes a braggadocio, but silence is not a good option.
I know money is the driver, but why wouldn't the Big presidents want to claim the most prestigious univ in big time sports, which also happens to be the overall c'ship winner as one of its own.
The conference did like to style itself the Conference of Champions, on the strength of championships won by Stanford (1,) UCLA (2,) USC (3,) and even Cal (10.) But in most online spaces that moniker mostly earned us derision. Most people didn't actually know that it referred to all of the championships won. And they just pointed out the lack of hardware in football or men's hoops as proof that we were puffing out our chest for no reason at all.
So yes, more bragging might be good. But people have to actually get what we're talking about.
I agree. We have never messaged the facts properly, much less aggressively. Sure, many people don't think it's a big deal. Otoh, there are folks like my friend in Memphis, a brobdingnagian college sports fan, who had no clue and thinks it's cool.
RE: It's over. - msqueri - 08-06-2023
Yeah, the truth is most people/normal people only care about football and the long drought of the Pac-12 even having a team good enough for the College Football Playoff made it a joke to everybody outside Pac-12 partisans to talk about the Pac-12 as if it was a respectable conference.
By the way, an irony of the crackup happening when it did is that 2023 looks to be a really good year for the conference. The Pac-12 will be very relevant in college football for the next five months and then disappear.
I’m a bit torn on Stanford’s marketing/non-marketing of its championships. On one level, I think it’s a fair point we could/should have marketed better. On the other, I worry about our elitism and whether this would reinforce those perceptions, plus we face the same problem as the Pac-12 of it being a joke to almost everybody if football and basketball aren’t good. Our image was pretty good when we were winning in football. The real problem is we didn’t sustain serious football. I’m not the biggest Shaw hater, but him plunging the program into irrelevance is a brobdingnagian part of the story of why we’re here today.
RE: It's over. - StanfordMatt - 08-06-2023
(08-05-2023, 09:35 PM)norcard10 Wrote: If stanford actually won or contended for championships recently in football or basketball, it wouldn't be in this position. Most of the country doesnt care about college water polo, gymnastics, golf, tennis, etc.
I’m afraid that even a stronger MBB program wouldn’t have helped our current predicament. It’s football and only football that drives the current money train in college athletics. If MBB actually mattered, programs like Gonzaga, UConn and San Diego State would have seats at the big kid table, too.
RE: It's over. - Goose - 08-06-2023
(08-06-2023, 08:43 AM)msqueri Wrote: Our image was pretty good when we were winning in football. The real problem is we didn’t sustain serious football. I’m not the biggest Shaw hater, but him plunging the program into irrelevance is a of immense proportions part of the story of why we’re here today.I think you are correct that Stanford might not be in the PAC-4 today if Stanford had remained near the top of the conference in football. Instead, if we were lucky, we would be where Oregon and Washington are today. Stanford football didn't cause USC and UCLA to join the Big-10. It also didn't cause the PAC-12s problems in getting a TV deal that delivered the cash that USC and (especially) UCLA needed to support their "life style". Once those two schools left, the value available from a TV deal, arguably already inadequate, plummeted. That doomed the PAC-12 as many other teams were now below their comfort zone. This led to sauve qui peut. Stanford being 9-3 wouldn't have changed that.
The best outcome for everybody in the Pac-12 sports-wise and football wise would have been for everybody, including UCLA and USC, to stay put. Once the latter two decided that the bigger payout was irresistible for them, it was basically over. The PAC-12s recent history of mismanagement contributed greatly to this but it was still not inevitable. It came down to a question of values, and USC was involved. That made the outcome predictable :-). IMO it is quite possible that a more football desirable Stanford would not have reacted as UW and Oregon did and quickly joined the Big-10 even if it could. That action required a decisiveness that Stanford isn't often called upon to exercise and probably does not possess.
I found the following article interesting: https://sports.yahoo.com/dabo-swinney-said-conference-realignment-203617647.html. Here, Dabo Swinney makes the argument that his team succeeds in football despite having a lower valued TV contract, and that this is a sustainable approach. He may be correct from Clemson's point of view, but what he needs to understand is that other, possibly less successful teams don't feel that way and that if they can, they want to join the SEC/Big-10 "money train". FSU is the poster child here. USC had a recent history in the PAC-12 that arguably was not as good as Stanford's. While they may be on an upswing, they didn't win the conference. UCLA hasn't been "good" for years. It is the departure of these "name" teams that finally did in the PAC-12. It wasn't how good their teams were. It was the perceived value of the LA TV market and their name recognition that made them attractive. Clemson has to worry about the same "hollowing out" of the ACC. However, the "grant of right" situation may preclude the PAC-12 situation in the ACC. Another management issue for the ex-PAC-12.
RE: It's over. - Mick - 08-06-2023
(08-06-2023, 09:22 AM)Goose Wrote:(08-06-2023, 08:43 AM)msqueri Wrote: Our image was pretty good when we were winning in football. The real problem is we didn’t sustain serious football. I’m not the biggest Shaw hater, but him plunging the program into irrelevance is a of immense proportions part of the story of why we’re here today.I think you are correct that Stanford might not be in the PAC-4 today if Stanford had remained near the top of the conference in football. Instead, if we were lucky, we would be where Oregon and Washington are today. Stanford football didn't cause USC and UCLA to join the Big-10. It also didn't cause the PAC-12s problems in getting a TV deal that delivered the cash that USC and (especially) UCLA needed to support their "life style". Once those two schools left, the value available from a TV deal, arguably already inadequate, plummeted. That doomed the PAC-12 as many other teams were now below their comfort zone. This led to sauve qui peut. Stanford being 9-3 wouldn't have changed that.
The best outcome for everybody in the Pac-12 sports-wise and football wise would have been for everybody, including UCLA and USC, to stay put. Once the latter two decided that the bigger payout was irresistible for them, it was basically over. The PAC-12s recent history of mismanagement contributed greatly to this but it was still not inevitable. It came down to a question of values, and USC was involved. That made the outcome predictable :-). IMO it is quite possible that a more football desirable Stanford would not have reacted as UW and Oregon did and quickly joined the Big-10 even if it could. That action required a decisiveness that Stanford isn't often called upon to exercise and probably does not possess.
I found the following article interesting: https://sports.yahoo.com/dabo-swinney-said-conference-realignment-203617647.html. Here, Dabo Swinney makes the argument that his team succeeds in football despite having a lower valued TV contract, and that this is a sustainable approach. He may be correct from Clemson's point of view, but what he needs to understand is that other, possibly less successful teams don't feel that way and that if they can, they want to join the SEC/Big-10 "money train". FSU is the poster child here. USC had a recent history in the PAC-12 that arguably was not as good as Stanford's. While they may be on an upswing, they didn't win the conference. UCLA hasn't been "good" for years. It is the departure of these "name" teams that finally did in the PAC-12. It wasn't how good their teams were. It was the perceived value of the LA TV market and their name recognition that made them attractive. Clemson has to worry about the same "hollowing out" of the ACC. However, the "grant of right" situation may preclude the PAC-12 situation in the ACC. Another management issue for the ex-PAC-12.
Some excellent points here. USC's all-time record vs. the Big 10 is 75-30-2, but USC's overall record in the last five seasons is 33-24, and USC hasn't played a game in snowy conditions since 1957. USC hasn't played a Big 10 team since the 2019 Holiday Bowl in which #19 Iowa smoked #22 USC, 49-24. USC lost the 2017 Cotton Bowl to Ohio State.
UCLA's overall record vs. the current Big 10 is 47-43-3. UCLA hasn't played a Big Ten team since the 2015 Foster Farms Bowl, in which UCLA lost to Nebraska, 37-29. Before that, UCLA lost to Illinois, 20-14 in the 2011 Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl.
RE: It's over. - fullmetal - 08-06-2023
(08-05-2023, 09:05 PM)paloalto Wrote: IMO it's not over.
I hope you're right, but it seems that a lot of contracts have been signed, and a lot of revenue promises have been made within other conferences. I just don't see there being enough revenue share to convince enough member programs in other conferences to give up to bring Stanford in.
RE: It's over. - dabigv13 - 08-06-2023
(08-06-2023, 08:43 AM)msqueri Wrote: I’m not the biggest Shaw hater, but him plunging the program into irrelevance is a of immense proportions part of the story of why we’re here today.
Maybe. But even if Stanford was still a regular top 25 program we still wouldn't be as attractive to the TV networks who run things as Oregon or UW.
It feels really rotten but if we want to keep a relevant athletics program we probably need to find a way in to the treacherous Big 10, even if it means we don't get any TV money for a while or we have to pay our way in. Think of how much fun our future conference rivals will have taunting us about that. Ugh.
RE: It's over. - fullmetal - 08-06-2023
After reading that "12 reasons why the Pac-12 collapsed" article, I don't think Shaw bears responsibility at all. Likelihood of big revenue shares seems to have been the biggest factors in USC/UCLA bailing on the conference. Maybe they ultimately realized that Kliavkoff didn't have what it would take. They didn't confer with the other schools; maybe this was their final way of voting no confidence in Kliavkoff. Fox/B1G were all too happy to chisel away at that fracture line and scoop the LA media market.