[82lsju]

part of a broadcast email to the loyal fans complaining about the late kick-offs, as everyone here knows its all about the money.......

-------

We also want to acknowledge the feedback we've received about the starting times of our games this year. We understand that night kickoffs can be challenging for some fans, and want to express our sincere gratitude for your continued support during a year with an unexpected number of night games.

We also understand that the practice of determining kickoff times either 12 or six days prior to gameday can create planning challenges. The Pac-12's current broadcast rights agreement, which helps Stanford to support over 900 student-athletes across 36 sports, provides our media partners with the flexibility to select the most attractive games for the most widely viewed television time slots. This scheduling flexibility creates significant value in the media rights contract and helps to generate resources that are used to support our student-athletes as they compete for Pac-12 and NCAA championships.

We will continue to do our best to communicate with you and mitigate the impact of these timing challenges and sincerely appreciate your understanding and continued support.

[82lsju]

part of a broadcast email to the loyal fans complaining about the late kick-offs, as everyone here knows its all about the money.......

-------

We also want to acknowledge the feedback we've received about the starting times of our games this year. We understand that night kickoffs can be challenging for some fans, and want to express our sincere gratitude for your continued support during a year with an unexpected number of night games.

We also understand that the practice of determining kickoff times either 12 or six days prior to gameday can create planning challenges. The Pac-12's current broadcast rights agreement, which helps Stanford to support over 900 student-athletes across 36 sports, provides our media partners with the flexibility to select the most attractive games for the most widely viewed television time slots. This scheduling flexibility creates significant value in the media rights contract and helps to generate resources that are used to support our student-athletes as they compete for Pac-12 and NCAA championships.

We will continue to do our best to communicate with you and mitigate the impact of these timing challenges and sincerely appreciate your understanding and continued support.

[Mick]

"It's all about whose money speaks the loudest.  Fan money whispers as softly as a gentle spring breeze.  TV money shouts like an El Nino hurricane.  Both are welcome, but only one makes it rain."

[Mick]

"It's all about whose money speaks the loudest.  Fan money whispers as softly as a gentle spring breeze.  TV money shouts like an El Nino hurricane.  Both are welcome, but only one makes it rain."

[donkey687]

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next contract negotiations. Sure, the flexibility is better to set-up the best tv matchup and the networks will pay more for that flexibility, but what is the cost of that? If the Pac12 asked the networks to pitch on two scenarios, one with less night and less scheduling flexibility (i.e. most games locked in advance) and one with current flexibility, what would be the difference in contracts?  I imagine the flexibility generates more than $1 million extra per year per team but less than $2 million per team.  (i.e. $12 to $24 million annual higher contract).  I bet if Stanford votes, they would choose the scenario that treats its fans better and generates $2 million less per year.  The Pac12 would still get a decent contract with less flexible game times.

[donkey687]

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next contract negotiations. Sure, the flexibility is better to set-up the best tv matchup and the networks will pay more for that flexibility, but what is the cost of that? If the Pac12 asked the networks to pitch on two scenarios, one with less night and less scheduling flexibility (i.e. most games locked in advance) and one with current flexibility, what would be the difference in contracts?  I imagine the flexibility generates more than $1 million extra per year per team but less than $2 million per team.  (i.e. $12 to $24 million annual higher contract).  I bet if Stanford votes, they would choose the scenario that treats its fans better and generates $2 million less per year.  The Pac12 would still get a decent contract with less flexible game times.

[Mick]

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next contract negotiations. Sure, the flexibility is better to set-up the best tv matchup and the networks will pay more for that flexibility, but what is the cost of that? If the Pac12 asked the networks to pitch on two scenarios, one with less night and less scheduling flexibility (i.e. most games locked in advance) and one with current flexibility, what would be the difference in contracts?  I imagine the flexibility generates more than $1 million extra per year per team but less than $2 million per team.  (i.e. $12 to $24 million annual higher contract). I bet if Stanford votes, they would choose the scenario that treats its fans better and generates $2 million less per year.  The Pac12 would still get a decent contract with less flexible game times.

Ehhhh, I wouldn't bet The Farm on that...

[Mick]

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next contract negotiations. Sure, the flexibility is better to set-up the best tv matchup and the networks will pay more for that flexibility, but what is the cost of that? If the Pac12 asked the networks to pitch on two scenarios, one with less night and less scheduling flexibility (i.e. most games locked in advance) and one with current flexibility, what would be the difference in contracts?  I imagine the flexibility generates more than $1 million extra per year per team but less than $2 million per team.  (i.e. $12 to $24 million annual higher contract). I bet if Stanford votes, they would choose the scenario that treats its fans better and generates $2 million less per year.  The Pac12 would still get a decent contract with less flexible game times.

Ehhhh, I wouldn't bet The Farm on that...

[82lsju]

[quote author=donkey687 link=topic=13725.msg143184#msg143184 date=1448293670]
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next contract negotiations. Sure, the flexibility is better to set-up the best tv matchup and the networks will pay more for that flexibility, but what is the cost of that? If the Pac12 asked the networks to pitch on two scenarios, one with less night and less scheduling flexibility (i.e. most games locked in advance) and one with current flexibility, what would be the difference in contracts?  I imagine the flexibility generates more than $1 million extra per year per team but less than $2 million per team.  (i.e. $12 to $24 million annual higher contract). I bet if Stanford votes, they would choose the scenario that treats its fans better and generates $2 million less per year.  The Pac12 would still get a decent contract with less flexible game times.

Ehhhh, I wouldn't bet The Farm on that...
[/quote]

What they might be able to do, but almost certainly won't, is "protect" say two home games a year for each team where the University gets some flexibility on game time.  I'm thinking specifically for us about

- reunion homecoming every year
- Big Game every other year and some other home game in the year Big Game is away

with times to be set at the beginning of the season and the University allowed to eliminate one time slot with the TV people to pick from the other two time slots (thinking here to eliminate the 7pm or later times for these specific games)

[82lsju]

[quote author=donkey687 link=topic=13725.msg143184#msg143184 date=1448293670]
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next contract negotiations. Sure, the flexibility is better to set-up the best tv matchup and the networks will pay more for that flexibility, but what is the cost of that? If the Pac12 asked the networks to pitch on two scenarios, one with less night and less scheduling flexibility (i.e. most games locked in advance) and one with current flexibility, what would be the difference in contracts?  I imagine the flexibility generates more than $1 million extra per year per team but less than $2 million per team.  (i.e. $12 to $24 million annual higher contract). I bet if Stanford votes, they would choose the scenario that treats its fans better and generates $2 million less per year.  The Pac12 would still get a decent contract with less flexible game times.

Ehhhh, I wouldn't bet The Farm on that...
[/quote]

What they might be able to do, but almost certainly won't, is "protect" say two home games a year for each team where the University gets some flexibility on game time.  I'm thinking specifically for us about

- reunion homecoming every year
- Big Game every other year and some other home game in the year Big Game is away

with times to be set at the beginning of the season and the University allowed to eliminate one time slot with the TV people to pick from the other two time slots (thinking here to eliminate the 7pm or later times for these specific games)

[Farm93]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=13725.msg143186#msg143186 date=1448294020]
[quote author=donkey687 link=topic=13725.msg143184#msg143184 date=1448293670]
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next contract negotiations. Sure, the flexibility is better to set-up the best tv matchup and the networks will pay more for that flexibility, but what is the cost of that? If the Pac12 asked the networks to pitch on two scenarios, one with less night and less scheduling flexibility (i.e. most games locked in advance) and one with current flexibility, what would be the difference in contracts?  I imagine the flexibility generates more than $1 million extra per year per team but less than $2 million per team.  (i.e. $12 to $24 million annual higher contract). I bet if Stanford votes, they would choose the scenario that treats its fans better and generates $2 million less per year.  The Pac12 would still get a decent contract with less flexible game times.

Ehhhh, I wouldn't bet The Farm on that...
[/quote]

What they might be able to do, but almost certainly won't, is "protect" say two home games a year for each team where the University gets some flexibility on game time.  I'm thinking specifically for us about

- reunion homecoming every year
- Big Game every other year and some other home game in the year Big Game is away

with times to be set at the beginning of the season and the University allowed to eliminate one time slot with the TV people to pick from the other two time slots (thinking here to eliminate the 7pm or later times for these specific games)
[/quote]

This is never about Stanford.  Stanford is not the swing vote on these issues.  That said, the homecoming/reunion protection is likely a cause that many Pac-12 schools would support.  It is very hard to plan those events, and those events, when run well, help generate big money for the schools.  Most schools don't want angry alums on fundraising, ummmm, reunion weekend.

The rivalry protection certainty thing likely will have less support.  And FWIW - it doesn't matter as much to me.  I know I will be at Big Game if it starts at 10AM or 10PM.  In some ways, the rivalry games are the easiest to justify starting at 7PM since the rivalry game fans and players likely are not too far from hom.  It is a long night, but the Cal kids still got home at a good hour.  USC and UCLA would be in a similar not too late return situation.  Same for Oregon and OSU.   

[Farm93]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=13725.msg143186#msg143186 date=1448294020]
[quote author=donkey687 link=topic=13725.msg143184#msg143184 date=1448293670]
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next contract negotiations. Sure, the flexibility is better to set-up the best tv matchup and the networks will pay more for that flexibility, but what is the cost of that? If the Pac12 asked the networks to pitch on two scenarios, one with less night and less scheduling flexibility (i.e. most games locked in advance) and one with current flexibility, what would be the difference in contracts?  I imagine the flexibility generates more than $1 million extra per year per team but less than $2 million per team.  (i.e. $12 to $24 million annual higher contract). I bet if Stanford votes, they would choose the scenario that treats its fans better and generates $2 million less per year.  The Pac12 would still get a decent contract with less flexible game times.

Ehhhh, I wouldn't bet The Farm on that...
[/quote]

What they might be able to do, but almost certainly won't, is "protect" say two home games a year for each team where the University gets some flexibility on game time.  I'm thinking specifically for us about

- reunion homecoming every year
- Big Game every other year and some other home game in the year Big Game is away

with times to be set at the beginning of the season and the University allowed to eliminate one time slot with the TV people to pick from the other two time slots (thinking here to eliminate the 7pm or later times for these specific games)
[/quote]

This is never about Stanford.  Stanford is not the swing vote on these issues.  That said, the homecoming/reunion protection is likely a cause that many Pac-12 schools would support.  It is very hard to plan those events, and those events, when run well, help generate big money for the schools.  Most schools don't want angry alums on fundraising, ummmm, reunion weekend.

The rivalry protection certainty thing likely will have less support.  And FWIW - it doesn't matter as much to me.  I know I will be at Big Game if it starts at 10AM or 10PM.  In some ways, the rivalry games are the easiest to justify starting at 7PM since the rivalry game fans and players likely are not too far from hom.  It is a long night, but the Cal kids still got home at a good hour.  USC and UCLA would be in a similar not too late return situation.  Same for Oregon and OSU.   

[82lsju]

The rivalry protection certainty thing likely will have less support.  And FWIW - it doesn't matter as much to me.  I know I will be at Big Game if it starts at 10AM or 10PM.  In some ways, the rivalry games are the easiest to justify starting at 7PM since the rivalry game fans and players likely are not too far from hom.  It is a long night, but the Low APR U kids still got home at a good hour.  Under Stanford Control and UCLA would be in a similar not too late return situation.  Same for Oregon and OSU. 

well this year for Rivalry games (all local times below), ours was the only one that started after 1:30pm local time

- Big Game Sat 21 Nov 7:30pm
- UA @ ASU Sat 21 Nov 1:30pm
- WSU @ UW Fri 27 Nov 12:30pm
- OSU @ UO Fri 27 Nov 1:00pm
- UCLA @ USC Sat 28 Nov 12:30pm
- CU @ UU Sat 28 Nov 12:30pm

[82lsju]

The rivalry protection certainty thing likely will have less support.  And FWIW - it doesn't matter as much to me.  I know I will be at Big Game if it starts at 10AM or 10PM.  In some ways, the rivalry games are the easiest to justify starting at 7PM since the rivalry game fans and players likely are not too far from hom.  It is a long night, but the Low APR U kids still got home at a good hour.  Under Stanford Control and UCLA would be in a similar not too late return situation.  Same for Oregon and OSU. 

well this year for Rivalry games (all local times below), ours was the only one that started after 1:30pm local time

- Big Game Sat 21 Nov 7:30pm
- UA @ ASU Sat 21 Nov 1:30pm
- WSU @ UW Fri 27 Nov 12:30pm
- OSU @ UO Fri 27 Nov 1:00pm
- UCLA @ USC Sat 28 Nov 12:30pm
- CU @ UU Sat 28 Nov 12:30pm

[Farm93]

And that list of schedules is part of the reason the rivalry sunlight protection clause will have less support since it really has not been an issue for most of the Pac-12 member schools.

I also don't recall Oregon or the Washington schools loving Fridays in the past.  I knew the Arizona schools had that day for a while.  The idea that the other rivalry games are willing to just bounce around demonstrates why I doubt they are going to sacrifice contract dollars for sunlight.

USC and UCLA is a virtual daytime lock since that game has a national tradition built on the weather.  Just when it is getting cold in other parts of the country, football fans can catch this classic rivalry game in warm and sunny SoCal.  That narrative doesn't sell if the fans and players look cold as they deal with 50 degree temps.

The Oregon and Washington schools apparently will move to different days just to get more TV exposure.  The Arizona schools, apparently were willing to just ditch their thing without much concern.  Utah and Colorado are already protected from November night games.  And UCLA and USC don't need to worry since the networks want that game in the sunlight.

So that leaves just two schools Stanford and UCB.  A voting block of two is not winning the day.  Say hello to kickoffs between 4:30 & 8PM for the next several years.

FWIW - Even I am not thrilled about riding BART in the East Bay around midnight on the weekend. 

[Farm93]

And that list of schedules is part of the reason the rivalry sunlight protection clause will have less support since it really has not been an issue for most of the Pac-12 member schools.

I also don't recall Oregon or the Washington schools loving Fridays in the past.  I knew the Arizona schools had that day for a while.  The idea that the other rivalry games are willing to just bounce around demonstrates why I doubt they are going to sacrifice contract dollars for sunlight.

USC and UCLA is a virtual daytime lock since that game has a national tradition built on the weather.  Just when it is getting cold in other parts of the country, football fans can catch this classic rivalry game in warm and sunny SoCal.  That narrative doesn't sell if the fans and players look cold as they deal with 50 degree temps.

The Oregon and Washington schools apparently will move to different days just to get more TV exposure.  The Arizona schools, apparently were willing to just ditch their thing without much concern.  Utah and Colorado are already protected from November night games.  And UCLA and USC don't need to worry since the networks want that game in the sunlight.

So that leaves just two schools Stanford and UCB.  A voting block of two is not winning the day.  Say hello to kickoffs between 4:30 & 8PM for the next several years.

FWIW - Even I am not thrilled about riding BART in the East Bay around midnight on the weekend. 

[yvonne]

You're not the first person I've heard suggest that each school be able to name a time before the season starts for a designated rivalry game and a homecoming game.

While teams are willing to bounce between the third and fourth Saturdays in November, or the Friday after Thanksgiving, no teams besides Stanford and the University of California have been forced to move a rivalry game to October. They are less powerful in negotiating. (And the conference may have decided after hearing all the complaints that that experiment was a failure not worth repeating.) Nevertheless, I think all schools would be interested in being able to announce to alumni a designated start time for homecoming. This would allow for activity planning, all that the residual effects that come with that. Teams don't tend to have homecoming on the same weekend, so it would be easier to set in advance than the rivalry weekend times.

[yvonne]

You're not the first person I've heard suggest that each school be able to name a time before the season starts for a designated rivalry game and a homecoming game.

While teams are willing to bounce between the third and fourth Saturdays in November, or the Friday after Thanksgiving, no teams besides Stanford and the University of California have been forced to move a rivalry game to October. They are less powerful in negotiating. (And the conference may have decided after hearing all the complaints that that experiment was a failure not worth repeating.) Nevertheless, I think all schools would be interested in being able to announce to alumni a designated start time for homecoming. This would allow for activity planning, all that the residual effects that come with that. Teams don't tend to have homecoming on the same weekend, so it would be easier to set in advance than the rivalry weekend times.

[82lsju]

Utah and Colorado are already protected from November night games. 

well except for those pesky weeknight games

- Fri Nov 13 7pm USC@CU

[82lsju]

Utah and Colorado are already protected from November night games. 

well except for those pesky weeknight games

- Fri Nov 13 7pm USC@CU

[82lsju]

Teams don't tend to have homecoming on the same weekend, so it would be easier to set in advance than the rivalry weekend times.

the reunion weekend games are not all the same weekend, but they do tend to all be in October, which would still be manageable

[82lsju]

Teams don't tend to have homecoming on the same weekend, so it would be easier to set in advance than the rivalry weekend times.

the reunion weekend games are not all the same weekend, but they do tend to all be in October, which would still be manageable

[82lsju]

I also don't recall Oregon or the Washington schools loving Fridays in the past.  I knew the Arizona schools had that day for a while. 

three of the last four UW/WSU games and two of the last four OU/OSU have been on the Friday after Thanksgiving.

[82lsju]

I also don't recall Oregon or the Washington schools loving Fridays in the past.  I knew the Arizona schools had that day for a while. 

three of the last four UW/WSU games and two of the last four OU/OSU have been on the Friday after Thanksgiving.

[winflop]

Things I would like to see in the next TV contract
- Conference gets to pick one game per week and choose the time slot for it
- Any game that isn't scheduled at least 13 days in advance cannot have kickoff after 6pm Pacific
- No more than two kickoffs after 6pm Pacific in any week
- No team can have more than four (or five) kickoffs after 6pm Pacific in the season
- Individual teams can refuse any game (OOC or otherwise) scheduled to kickoff before noon Pacific

I know there's no way to get all of this but even some of it would help.

The conference needs to combat the structural bias that exists where 2/3+ of the national viewing audience and Voldemort voters live East of the Mississippi.  The only way to do that is to ensure that the top teams/matchups and top players are being showcased to that national audience as much as possible.

The current TV contract leaves the conference as largely a regional exposure.  I did talk to someone in the AD and it looks like this albatross will be around our necks as is until the current agreement is up.  Anybody know when that is?

[winflop]

Things I would like to see in the next TV contract
- Conference gets to pick one game per week and choose the time slot for it
- Any game that isn't scheduled at least 13 days in advance cannot have kickoff after 6pm Pacific
- No more than two kickoffs after 6pm Pacific in any week
- No team can have more than four (or five) kickoffs after 6pm Pacific in the season
- Individual teams can refuse any game (OOC or otherwise) scheduled to kickoff before noon Pacific

I know there's no way to get all of this but even some of it would help.

The conference needs to combat the structural bias that exists where 2/3+ of the national viewing audience and Voldemort voters live East of the Mississippi.  The only way to do that is to ensure that the top teams/matchups and top players are being showcased to that national audience as much as possible.

The current TV contract leaves the conference as largely a regional exposure.  I did talk to someone in the AD and it looks like this albatross will be around our necks as is until the current agreement is up.  Anybody know when that is?

[CowboyIndian]

Here's a letter from a classmate of mine to Muir, which I heartily endorse. He told me, "I am now officially a cranky old alum."

Stop being a slave to television. Stanford has an endowment of 36 billion for God's sake which could  easily give a full ride to every student, not just athletes.  I and many thousands of Alumni give money to Stanford in order to support students and maintain Stanford as a private and independent institution of higher learning, not a lap dog to ESPN and Fox. Furthermore, there is this:

"But seven Stanford games have started at 7 p.m. or later; that’s 10 p.m. in the East. Steve Palazzolo of Pro Football Focus tweeted: “If Christian McCaffrey goes for 386 (sic) all-purpose yards but it’s 1:40 am eastern, did it really happen for the Voldemort voters?”

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...650832.php

William C., Class of 1970

[CowboyIndian]

Here's a letter from a classmate of mine to Muir, which I heartily endorse. He told me, "I am now officially a cranky old alum."

Stop being a slave to television. Stanford has an endowment of 36 billion for God's sake which could  easily give a full ride to every student, not just athletes.  I and many thousands of Alumni give money to Stanford in order to support students and maintain Stanford as a private and independent institution of higher learning, not a lap dog to ESPN and Fox. Furthermore, there is this:

"But seven Stanford games have started at 7 p.m. or later; that’s 10 p.m. in the East. Steve Palazzolo of Pro Football Focus tweeted: “If Christian McCaffrey goes for 386 (sic) all-purpose yards but it’s 1:40 am eastern, did it really happen for the Voldemort voters?”

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...650832.php

William C., Class of 1970

[Stymie]

Well argued, Willam C (and CI)

To paraphrase Eli Wallach in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.":

"ESPN/FOX, to god-damned hell with ESPN/FOX! We have no ESPN/FOX. In fact, we don't need ESPN/FOX. I don't have to show you any stinking ESPN/FOX, you god-damned cabrón and chinga tu madre!"

End of rant....

[Stymie]

Well argued, Willam C (and CI)

To paraphrase Eli Wallach in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.":

"ESPN/FOX, to god-damned hell with ESPN/FOX! We have no ESPN/FOX. In fact, we don't need ESPN/FOX. I don't have to show you any stinking ESPN/FOX, you god-damned cabrón and chinga tu madre!"

End of rant....

[Nan3cy]

Unless the endowment has done REALLY well since 8/31/15, I doubt it's $36B. As of 8/31 it was $22.2 billion, according to "Stanford University Facts." The point remains valid, but having an exaggerated number in their just gives them an excuse to dismiss the point.

[Nan3cy]

Unless the endowment has done REALLY well since 8/31/15, I doubt it's $36B. As of 8/31 it was $22.2 billion, according to "Stanford University Facts." The point remains valid, but having an exaggerated number in their just gives them an excuse to dismiss the point.

[stupac2]

Well, a wrong number doesn't help the case, but the fact is that Stanford is just one of 12 teams and most of those other teams need the money more than we do (although given that Stanford seems to busk more aggressively than the bums on BART, it sure doesn't FEEL that way). Unless we want to take our ball and go home (ie go independent) it's always going to be a compromise, and right now we just don't have any power to affect things.

The good news is that other teams are also pissed off about this so there's some chance we get additional protections. But the TV stations are always going to want 1-2 teams playing after 7 PM, and that has to be the Pac-12. Being on the West Coast has a lot of pluses, being ignored by the east-coast-based media is one of the few downsides.

[stupac2]

Well, a wrong number doesn't help the case, but the fact is that Stanford is just one of 12 teams and most of those other teams need the money more than we do (although given that Stanford seems to busk more aggressively than the bums on BART, it sure doesn't FEEL that way). Unless we want to take our ball and go home (ie go independent) it's always going to be a compromise, and right now we just don't have any power to affect things.

The good news is that other teams are also pissed off about this so there's some chance we get additional protections. But the TV stations are always going to want 1-2 teams playing after 7 PM, and that has to be the Pac-12. Being on the West Coast has a lot of pluses, being ignored by the east-coast-based media is one of the few downsides.

[Embo]

no teams besides Stanford and the University of California have been forced to move a rivalry game to October. They are less powerful in negotiating. (And the conference may have decided after hearing all the complaints that that experiment was a failure not worth repeating.)

What a surprise.  Another reason to despise Larry Scott.  I remember when that 2012 schedule came out, and that was the first thing that people noticed - 100+ years of tradition (a November Big Game) discarded at the expense of television.  I recall Scott's mealy-mouthed rationale:  That he wanted all rivalry games televised and without overlapping, so he had to reschedule.  Don't worry, he reassured us, all the conference teams will take turns moving their rivalry games to a non-traditional date.  Would Scott ever have U.SC.-UCLA play other than the weekend after Thanksgiving?  I knew back then that Scott was full of it.  The answer was no then and no now.

[Embo]

no teams besides Stanford and the University of California have been forced to move a rivalry game to October. They are less powerful in negotiating. (And the conference may have decided after hearing all the complaints that that experiment was a failure not worth repeating.)

What a surprise.  Another reason to despise Larry Scott.  I remember when that 2012 schedule came out, and that was the first thing that people noticed - 100+ years of tradition (a November Big Game) discarded at the expense of television.  I recall Scott's mealy-mouthed rationale:  That he wanted all rivalry games televised and without overlapping, so he had to reschedule.  Don't worry, he reassured us, all the conference teams will take turns moving their rivalry games to a non-traditional date.  Would Scott ever have U.SC.-UCLA play other than the weekend after Thanksgiving?  I knew back then that Scott was full of it.  The answer was no then and no now.

[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=13725.msg143210#msg143210 date=1448301690]

I also don't recall Oregon or the Washington schools loving Fridays in the past.  I knew the Arizona schools had that day for a while. 

three of the last four UW/WSU games and two of the last four OU/OSU have been on the Friday after Thanksgiving.
[/quote]
By past I meant pre-Pac-12.  UofA and ASU played their rivalry game on Black Friday for at least a few years back in the day, but the other rivalry games were Saturday deals.  Right?  Now with the new contract they are playing of Fridays and few are complaining apparently.  So the only schools with big complaints about needing/wanting/demanding their rivalry game on the Saturday before Thanksgiving in the daytime are Stanford and UCB.

Everyone else seems more flexible with the exception of perhaps UCLA and USC but they are safe for different reasons.

[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=13725.msg143210#msg143210 date=1448301690]

I also don't recall Oregon or the Washington schools loving Fridays in the past.  I knew the Arizona schools had that day for a while. 

three of the last four UW/WSU games and two of the last four OU/OSU have been on the Friday after Thanksgiving.
[/quote]
By past I meant pre-Pac-12.  UofA and ASU played their rivalry game on Black Friday for at least a few years back in the day, but the other rivalry games were Saturday deals.  Right?  Now with the new contract they are playing of Fridays and few are complaining apparently.  So the only schools with big complaints about needing/wanting/demanding their rivalry game on the Saturday before Thanksgiving in the daytime are Stanford and UCB.

Everyone else seems more flexible with the exception of perhaps UCLA and USC but they are safe for different reasons.

[terry]

Unless the endowment has done REALLY well since 8/31/15, I doubt it's $36B. As of 8/31 it was $22.2 billion, according to "Stanford University Facts." The point remains valid, but having an exaggerated number in their just gives them an excuse to dismiss the point.

I don't think Muir cares about the size of the university's overall endowment. He cares about the athletic department's revenue streams. Last time I looked, I think the athletic endowment was in the range of $450 million to $500 million -- large, but not anywhere near $36 billion. The athletic endowment throws off about $25 million per year in revenue, which is the department's largest revenue source. Broadcast revenue is the second largest source at about $18 million, I believe. Losing a couple million in broadcast revenue would not be trivial.

In any event, it doesn't really matter because Muir isn't driving these decisions. Stanford doesn't have the ability to impose its will on the Pac 12. It's a Pac 12 issue, not a Muir issue.

[terry]

Unless the endowment has done REALLY well since 8/31/15, I doubt it's $36B. As of 8/31 it was $22.2 billion, according to "Stanford University Facts." The point remains valid, but having an exaggerated number in their just gives them an excuse to dismiss the point.

I don't think Muir cares about the size of the university's overall endowment. He cares about the athletic department's revenue streams. Last time I looked, I think the athletic endowment was in the range of $450 million to $500 million -- large, but not anywhere near $36 billion. The athletic endowment throws off about $25 million per year in revenue, which is the department's largest revenue source. Broadcast revenue is the second largest source at about $18 million, I believe. Losing a couple million in broadcast revenue would not be trivial.

In any event, it doesn't really matter because Muir isn't driving these decisions. Stanford doesn't have the ability to impose its will on the Pac 12. It's a Pac 12 issue, not a Muir issue.