[yvonne]

and welcome football in China. Larry Scott's contract has been extended, and we can focus on important things like TV revenue and not be encumbered by nuisances like tradition.

[yvonne]

and welcome football in China. Larry Scott's contract has been extended, and we can focus on important things like TV revenue and not be encumbered by nuisances like tradition.

[LuckE2Bhere]

Blame the American sports fan, not Larry Scott.  Harvard-Yale has far more tradition than Big Game, and relatively few people care anymore.  Money simply follows demand.  I'm not saying its right, or ideal, but it also tends to be highly correlated with where the best players generally like to go (to be on TV, enjoy luxurious locker rooms, etc.).  We can stick with tradition (as many of us may reasonably prefer), but you can't then complain if we become "irrelevant".

[LuckE2Bhere]

Blame the American sports fan, not Larry Scott.  Harvard-Yale has far more tradition than Big Game, and relatively few people care anymore.  Money simply follows demand.  I'm not saying its right, or ideal, but it also tends to be highly correlated with where the best players generally like to go (to be on TV, enjoy luxurious locker rooms, etc.).  We can stick with tradition (as many of us may reasonably prefer), but you can't then complain if we become "irrelevant".

[ChicagoCard]

I'm torn by the consideration of not wanting the Big-10 and SEC to go too far out ahead in the money game and of staying true to tradition. In the end I care more about the Pac-12 staying competitive and doing some of those things that Scott thinks he has to do so that conference teams can continue to attract and afford the competitive and innovative coaches that have been brought in recently (the Pac-10 has always led among major conferences, correct me if I'm wrong, in coaches who had such success that they moved to the NFL and not just that but led teams to the Super Bowl... Ralston, Vermeil, McKay, Robinson?, Walsh, and Harbaugh a near miss). I do wish the Big Game tradition would continue. Maybe adding the University of South Bend as the final game was a kind of slippery slope to what we have next year.

[ChicagoCard]

I'm torn by the consideration of not wanting the Big-10 and SEC to go too far out ahead in the money game and of staying true to tradition. In the end I care more about the Pac-12 staying competitive and doing some of those things that Scott thinks he has to do so that conference teams can continue to attract and afford the competitive and innovative coaches that have been brought in recently (the Pac-10 has always led among major conferences, correct me if I'm wrong, in coaches who had such success that they moved to the NFL and not just that but led teams to the Super Bowl... Ralston, Vermeil, McKay, Robinson?, Walsh, and Harbaugh a near miss). I do wish the Big Game tradition would continue. Maybe adding the University of South Bend as the final game was a kind of slippery slope to what we have next year.

[Spiny_Norman]

The big money forces are too strong for the Pac 12 and Big 10 to stand against any longer.  The Big 10, a stalwart opponent of a football playoff, is now reported to be open to a 4 team playoff.  Either aliens have taken over the league office, or the resistance has crumbled under public pressure and the desire for more money.

In fairness, Larry Scott is only following the guidance he received from the presidents and ADs - increase the revenue pool.  Let's also remember that Larry Scott did not move Big Game to the middle of October.  That was the schedule that was selected by a majority of the Pac 12 presidents/ADs when offered three alternatives.  USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington?  They are likely the ones who screwed Stanford. 

So what football traditions would you like to see preserved?  My $0.02:
Big Game played the 3rd Saturday in November.  early afternoon kickoff.
Stanford plays UCLA and USC every year.
Big 10 vs. Pac 12 in the Rose Bowl which is always played on New Years Day (except when it falls on a Sunday).  2 pm kickoff with Curt Gowdy and Al DeRogatis, Dick Enberg and Merlin Olsen, or Keith Jackson and Dan Fouts calling the game.

[Spiny_Norman]

The big money forces are too strong for the Pac 12 and Big 10 to stand against any longer.  The Big 10, a stalwart opponent of a football playoff, is now reported to be open to a 4 team playoff.  Either aliens have taken over the league office, or the resistance has crumbled under public pressure and the desire for more money.

In fairness, Larry Scott is only following the guidance he received from the presidents and ADs - increase the revenue pool.  Let's also remember that Larry Scott did not move Big Game to the middle of October.  That was the schedule that was selected by a majority of the Pac 12 presidents/ADs when offered three alternatives.  USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington?  They are likely the ones who screwed Stanford. 

So what football traditions would you like to see preserved?  My $0.02:
Big Game played the 3rd Saturday in November.  early afternoon kickoff.
Stanford plays UCLA and USC every year.
Big 10 vs. Pac 12 in the Rose Bowl which is always played on New Years Day (except when it falls on a Sunday).  2 pm kickoff with Curt Gowdy and Al DeRogatis, Dick Enberg and Merlin Olsen, or Keith Jackson and Dan Fouts calling the game.

[Farm93]

So what football traditions would you like to see preserved?  My $0.02:
Big Game played the 3rd Saturday in November.  early afternoon kickoff.
Stanford plays UCLA and the University of South Central every year.
Big 10 vs. Pac 12 in the Rose Bowl which is always played on New Years Day (except when it falls on a Sunday).  2 pm kickoff with Curt Gowdy and Al DeRogatis, Dick Enberg and Merlin Olsen, or Keith Jackson and Dan Fouts calling the game.

Oddly, none of those "traditions" seems safe.  The only one that has even been true for each of the last 5-6 years has been the Stanford vs. SoCal schools.  The other items are already not really annual traditions.

Funny thing, when your team is at a BCS bowl game the commentators at all of the BCS games becomes less significant.  So I kind of like the tradition over the last two years.  Stanford in a BCS game! With that tradition in place I really don't care if Dora The Explorer, Bart Simpson and Jeff Probst call the game.

[Farm93]

So what football traditions would you like to see preserved?  My $0.02:
Big Game played the 3rd Saturday in November.  early afternoon kickoff.
Stanford plays UCLA and the University of South Central every year.
Big 10 vs. Pac 12 in the Rose Bowl which is always played on New Years Day (except when it falls on a Sunday).  2 pm kickoff with Curt Gowdy and Al DeRogatis, Dick Enberg and Merlin Olsen, or Keith Jackson and Dan Fouts calling the game.

Oddly, none of those "traditions" seems safe.  The only one that has even been true for each of the last 5-6 years has been the Stanford vs. SoCal schools.  The other items are already not really annual traditions.

Funny thing, when your team is at a BCS bowl game the commentators at all of the BCS games becomes less significant.  So I kind of like the tradition over the last two years.  Stanford in a BCS game! With that tradition in place I really don't care if Dora The Explorer, Bart Simpson and Jeff Probst call the game.

[OutsiderFan]

I continue to believe the Big Game in October is a one time or at least every several year deal.  I have not heard anything to confirm it will never be played at the end of November again, and continue to believe - absent any evidence to the contrary - the other conference rivalry games will be bounced around in similar fashion as well.  In other words I don't believe California and Stanford will be singled out permanently because that is not equitable, and the conference's whole M.O. is equitable treatment for all members.

[OutsiderFan]

I continue to believe the Big Game in October is a one time or at least every several year deal.  I have not heard anything to confirm it will never be played at the end of November again, and continue to believe - absent any evidence to the contrary - the other conference rivalry games will be bounced around in similar fashion as well.  In other words I don't believe California and Stanford will be singled out permanently because that is not equitable, and the conference's whole M.O. is equitable treatment for all members.

[Redrum]

Stanford plays UCLA and the University of South Central every year.

Just prior to the schedule being released,  it was floated by someone in the Pac12 office that the schedule might take some getting used to AND  it was mentioned prominently that the insistence on keeping the North/South games with the LA schools intact was a major driver (impediment)  to the schedule that would be released.  That could be just bull**** to cover other motives,  but it has some validity on its face.  Balancing all schools' OOC games,  some contracted years in advance,  AND play in their division, AND keep the LA schools on the schedule is a tall order.    The only relief can come from rotating on/off inter-division games w/ LA schools and long-term of adjusting OOC games to fit the Pac-12 schedule.  This might mean that ND drops off ours eventually and that a national solution ( weeks 1-3 of the season become a national OOC "preseason").

[Redrum]

Stanford plays UCLA and the University of South Central every year.

Just prior to the schedule being released,  it was floated by someone in the Pac12 office that the schedule might take some getting used to AND  it was mentioned prominently that the insistence on keeping the North/South games with the LA schools intact was a major driver (impediment)  to the schedule that would be released.  That could be just bull**** to cover other motives,  but it has some validity on its face.  Balancing all schools' OOC games,  some contracted years in advance,  AND play in their division, AND keep the LA schools on the schedule is a tall order.    The only relief can come from rotating on/off inter-division games w/ LA schools and long-term of adjusting OOC games to fit the Pac-12 schedule.  This might mean that ND drops off ours eventually and that a national solution ( weeks 1-3 of the season become a national OOC "preseason").

[82lsju]

well let's see if the UCLA/U.S.C. game next year is in OCT.  Some of the scheduling issues cited above for us will be the same for U.S.C next year

- play ND in Oct
- play both schools from the other part of California

Not sure if the UCLA/U.S.C. game is as opposed to being played on Thanksgiving weekend as Big Game which would be one less constraint than we appear to impose.

[82lsju]

well let's see if the UCLA/U.S.C. game next year is in OCT.  Some of the scheduling issues cited above for us will be the same for U.S.C next year

- play ND in Oct
- play both schools from the other part of California

Not sure if the UCLA/U.S.C. game is as opposed to being played on Thanksgiving weekend as Big Game which would be one less constraint than we appear to impose.

[Leftcoast]

The "no big game on Thanksgiving weekend" decision reportedly came from the C.al side of the equation. 

Would Stanford and Stanford fans be as opposed to a Thanksgiving game when it is our turn to host?  I say bring it on.  I would far prefer a Thanksgiving Saturday game to an October game.  It's not even close.  (Of course, I would NOT want a Thanksgiving THURSDAY game.)

[Leftcoast]

The "no big game on Thanksgiving weekend" decision reportedly came from the C.al side of the equation. 

Would Stanford and Stanford fans be as opposed to a Thanksgiving game when it is our turn to host?  I say bring it on.  I would far prefer a Thanksgiving Saturday game to an October game.  It's not even close.  (Of course, I would NOT want a Thanksgiving THURSDAY game.)

[yvonne]

Maybe adding the University of South Bend as the final game was a kind of slippery slope to what we have next year.

I think the South Bend contract was negotiated under Ted although Bowlsby may have extended it. Stanford's football program was in a weaker position at the time, and USB was in a much stronger one.  Stanford needed the attractive game to sell tickets, and was willing to agree to ND's terms. Now, the football program is selling out most games. The ND game was at most, the fourth biggest game last year. That contract needs to be renegotiated or even terminated. That game should not stand as an impediment to keeping our rivalry game intact. We should walk from anything other than a simple home and home agreement.

Notre Dame is in the habit of bullying smaller schools into favorable schedules. It has a "home and home" with Connecticut in which Connecticut's "home" games are played in East Rutherford, NJ. Let ND become the randomly scheduled game, and the problems with the Big Game will be greatly reduced.

[yvonne]

Maybe adding the University of South Bend as the final game was a kind of slippery slope to what we have next year.

I think the South Bend contract was negotiated under Ted although Bowlsby may have extended it. Stanford's football program was in a weaker position at the time, and USB was in a much stronger one.  Stanford needed the attractive game to sell tickets, and was willing to agree to ND's terms. Now, the football program is selling out most games. The ND game was at most, the fourth biggest game last year. That contract needs to be renegotiated or even terminated. That game should not stand as an impediment to keeping our rivalry game intact. We should walk from anything other than a simple home and home agreement.

Notre Dame is in the habit of bullying smaller schools into favorable schedules. It has a "home and home" with Connecticut in which Connecticut's "home" games are played in East Rutherford, NJ. Let ND become the randomly scheduled game, and the problems with the Big Game will be greatly reduced.

[yvonne]

The "no big game on Thanksgiving weekend" decision reportedly came from the California side of the equation. 

Well, it was mentioned in Barbour's official response, and not Bowlsby's, but I wonder whether it would affect Stanford even more, since no classes Thanksgiving week. Still, Thanksgiving week is better than October.

[yvonne]

The "no big game on Thanksgiving weekend" decision reportedly came from the California side of the equation. 

Well, it was mentioned in Barbour's official response, and not Bowlsby's, but I wonder whether it would affect Stanford even more, since no classes Thanksgiving week. Still, Thanksgiving week is better than October.

[Embo]

[quote author=centralcafan link=topic=5546.msg40484#msg40484 date=1328741998]Maybe adding the University of South Bend as the final game was a kind of slippery slope to what we have next year.

I think the South Bend contract was negotiated under Ted although Bowlsby may have extended it. Stanford's football program was in a weaker position at the time, and USB was in a much stronger one.  Stanford needed the attractive game to sell tickets, and was willing to agree to ND's terms. Now, the football program is selling out most games. The ND game was at most, the fourth biggest game last year. That contract needs to be renegotiated or even terminated. That game should not stand as an impediment to keeping our rivalry game intact. We should walk from anything other than a simple home and home agreement.

the University of South Bend is in the habit of bullying smaller schools into favorable schedules. It has a "home and home" with Connecticut in which Connecticut's "home" games are played in East Rutherford, NJ. Let ND become the randomly scheduled game, and the problems with the Big Game will be greatly reduced.
[/quote]

Yvonne, you are correct regarding Ted as being the one who agreed to the shifing of the game to the Thanksgiving weekend.  The Stanford-ND series began with regularity at South Bend in 1988.  The 1989 game was played in the old Stanford Stadium in October, with kickoff at 1:30 on a warm day.  I remember it well, because it was homecoming weekend and a reunion year for me.  The attendance was over 80,000.  There were games at Stanford in 1991 and 1993 with a break in 95; those games had excellent attendance also.  The series was resumed in 1997, again on a warm October afternoon, with Mike Mitchell and Anthony Bookman each breaking 100 yards.  That crowd was around 77,000, that number of which I'm pretty confident.

Things changed in 1999.  ND wanted a yearly, end of season game in California. for the benefit of recruiting exposure and to reward their players with better November weather than what they experienced in South Bend  They had it in even years with SC.  They wanted the same in odd years, and Ted acquiesced.  The effect on attendance was predictable - at night, with students out, with a higher chance of rain (it was a deluge in 2001), it would plummet.  I remember the Wisconsin fans coming to our boards in 1999 (when the Rose Bowl matchup was set, and they had an interest in Stanford-ND) making disparaging comments about the crowd.

Ted did something in 2004 that also reeked of acquiescence to ND.  The 2004 season was to open with a marquee matchup - Michigan vs. ND.  But Michigan at the last minute rearranged their schedule to have one game before they met ND.  ND then tried to rearrange their schedule so they, too, could have a game before Michigan.  They did ask Stanford to move their game to that first week in September, which Ted at least refused.  So ND had another plan.  It was convoluted - requiring a few schools to change several games.  BYU then requested that Stanford move its game up one week.  The ulterior motive was obvious - ND was to play at BYU and wanted to move that game to before their Michigan game.  There was no real benefit to Stanford for the move.  Ted could have said no, if only to stick a thumb in the eye of the self-important Irish.  But of course, you know what happened. 

Bob Bowlsby has not taken the same path.  There were postings that ND wanted to play Stanford at a "neutral site", like the ND-WSU game in San Antonio in 2009.  Of course, ND wanted this in an odd year - away from Stanford Stadium.  Bowlsby said no. 

[Embo]

[quote author=centralcafan link=topic=5546.msg40484#msg40484 date=1328741998]Maybe adding the University of South Bend as the final game was a kind of slippery slope to what we have next year.

I think the South Bend contract was negotiated under Ted although Bowlsby may have extended it. Stanford's football program was in a weaker position at the time, and USB was in a much stronger one.  Stanford needed the attractive game to sell tickets, and was willing to agree to ND's terms. Now, the football program is selling out most games. The ND game was at most, the fourth biggest game last year. That contract needs to be renegotiated or even terminated. That game should not stand as an impediment to keeping our rivalry game intact. We should walk from anything other than a simple home and home agreement.

the University of South Bend is in the habit of bullying smaller schools into favorable schedules. It has a "home and home" with Connecticut in which Connecticut's "home" games are played in East Rutherford, NJ. Let ND become the randomly scheduled game, and the problems with the Big Game will be greatly reduced.
[/quote]

Yvonne, you are correct regarding Ted as being the one who agreed to the shifing of the game to the Thanksgiving weekend.  The Stanford-ND series began with regularity at South Bend in 1988.  The 1989 game was played in the old Stanford Stadium in October, with kickoff at 1:30 on a warm day.  I remember it well, because it was homecoming weekend and a reunion year for me.  The attendance was over 80,000.  There were games at Stanford in 1991 and 1993 with a break in 95; those games had excellent attendance also.  The series was resumed in 1997, again on a warm October afternoon, with Mike Mitchell and Anthony Bookman each breaking 100 yards.  That crowd was around 77,000, that number of which I'm pretty confident.

Things changed in 1999.  ND wanted a yearly, end of season game in California. for the benefit of recruiting exposure and to reward their players with better November weather than what they experienced in South Bend  They had it in even years with SC.  They wanted the same in odd years, and Ted acquiesced.  The effect on attendance was predictable - at night, with students out, with a higher chance of rain (it was a deluge in 2001), it would plummet.  I remember the Wisconsin fans coming to our boards in 1999 (when the Rose Bowl matchup was set, and they had an interest in Stanford-ND) making disparaging comments about the crowd.

Ted did something in 2004 that also reeked of acquiescence to ND.  The 2004 season was to open with a marquee matchup - Michigan vs. ND.  But Michigan at the last minute rearranged their schedule to have one game before they met ND.  ND then tried to rearrange their schedule so they, too, could have a game before Michigan.  They did ask Stanford to move their game to that first week in September, which Ted at least refused.  So ND had another plan.  It was convoluted - requiring a few schools to change several games.  BYU then requested that Stanford move its game up one week.  The ulterior motive was obvious - ND was to play at BYU and wanted to move that game to before their Michigan game.  There was no real benefit to Stanford for the move.  Ted could have said no, if only to stick a thumb in the eye of the self-important Irish.  But of course, you know what happened. 

Bob Bowlsby has not taken the same path.  There were postings that ND wanted to play Stanford at a "neutral site", like the ND-WSU game in San Antonio in 2009.  Of course, ND wanted this in an odd year - away from Stanford Stadium.  Bowlsby said no.