[Mick]

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-sa...17647.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.

[Mick]

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-sa...17647.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.