[Phogge]

Yeah, religious conversion after a gang tackle.

[Phogge]

Yeah, religious conversion after a gang tackle.

[82lsju]

I think both the SEC and the B10 are equal shares conferences.  The only one I know that wasn't was the B12.

I believe they are but the B10 apparently had a vesting period where the last batch of new members got a smaller share for 6 years after joining

https://www.dailynebraskan.com/nse/unl-t...9bd5d.html

[82lsju]

I think both the SEC and the B10 are equal shares conferences.  The only one I know that wasn't was the B12.

I believe they are but the B10 apparently had a vesting period where the last batch of new members got a smaller share for 6 years after joining

https://www.dailynebraskan.com/nse/unl-t...9bd5d.html

[GK3]

Nobody can be surprised by this, can they?  

You guys may get your wish that Stanford becomes a D3 athletic program.

Stanford and Cal could pay a massive price for not caring about and prioritizing winning in the "revenue" sports.

Stanford could probably get away with being an Independent, but Cal not so much.

OF, so what do you propose, that Stanford prostitute itself and do away withy academic standards for athletes and go the way of Alabama?
Stanford cares about winning but I don't think it is going to change its admission or other standards.  Was Stanford invited to join UCLA and USC? We may pay a price, but what option do we or did we have to prevent this?  The current state of college football and basketball is such as that there is little school loyalty at most places.  The transfer rules are such that guys are going to two or three schools in a four year career.  I don't see this as a path Stanford sports.  Stanford and big money sports don't have much in common philosophically.  I am mostly concerned about the lower or non revenue sports.

[GK3]

Nobody can be surprised by this, can they?  

You guys may get your wish that Stanford becomes a D3 athletic program.

Stanford and Cal could pay a massive price for not caring about and prioritizing winning in the "revenue" sports.

Stanford could probably get away with being an Independent, but Cal not so much.

OF, so what do you propose, that Stanford prostitute itself and do away withy academic standards for athletes and go the way of Alabama?
Stanford cares about winning but I don't think it is going to change its admission or other standards.  Was Stanford invited to join UCLA and USC? We may pay a price, but what option do we or did we have to prevent this?  The current state of college football and basketball is such as that there is little school loyalty at most places.  The transfer rules are such that guys are going to two or three schools in a four year career.  I don't see this as a path Stanford sports.  Stanford and big money sports don't have much in common philosophically.  I am mostly concerned about the lower or non revenue sports.

[FarmTeam]

Nobody can be surprised by this, can they?  

You guys may get your wish that Stanford becomes a D3 athletic program.

Stanford and Cal could pay a massive price for not caring about and prioritizing winning in the "revenue" sports.

Stanford could probably get away with being an Independent, but Cal not so much.

OF, so what do you propose, that Stanford prostitute itself and do away withy academic standards for athletes and go the way of Alabama?
Stanford cares about winning but I don't think it is going to change its admission or other standards.  Was Stanford invited to join UCLA and USC? We may pay a price, but what option do we or did we have to prevent this?  The current state of college football and basketball is such as that there is little school loyalty at most places.  The transfer rules are such that guys are going to two or three schools in a four year career.  I don't see this as a path Stanford sports.  Stanford and big money sports don't have much in common philosophically.  I am mostly concerned about the lower or non revenue sports.

I don't know where you all have been that you think Stanford hasn't prostituted itself on academic standards. Without naming names, we have athletes who are barely functional across multiple sports that I know and/or have first-hand experience with: football, women's soccer, women's softball. I mean droolingly stupid, and totally indifferent to academics. I'm talking current and/or very recent too. I'd actually like to go non-scholarship D1 (like an Ivy) or D3. The athlete vs non-athlete divide at Stanford in an era of 4-5% admission rates is a bigger gulf (the Grand Canyon!) than it has ever been. 

I admit that I'm a bit two-faced on this because I root hard for Stanford football and am a men's basketball season ticketholder. I basically think of them as a pro sports franchise, because there's nothing academic about those teams (with some exceptions of course) as much as we like to pretend otherwise. And don't give me this "our football players are smarter than Alabama's" cr@p. That may or may not be true, but it's beside the point.

[FarmTeam]

Nobody can be surprised by this, can they?  

You guys may get your wish that Stanford becomes a D3 athletic program.

Stanford and Cal could pay a massive price for not caring about and prioritizing winning in the "revenue" sports.

Stanford could probably get away with being an Independent, but Cal not so much.

OF, so what do you propose, that Stanford prostitute itself and do away withy academic standards for athletes and go the way of Alabama?
Stanford cares about winning but I don't think it is going to change its admission or other standards.  Was Stanford invited to join UCLA and USC? We may pay a price, but what option do we or did we have to prevent this?  The current state of college football and basketball is such as that there is little school loyalty at most places.  The transfer rules are such that guys are going to two or three schools in a four year career.  I don't see this as a path Stanford sports.  Stanford and big money sports don't have much in common philosophically.  I am mostly concerned about the lower or non revenue sports.

I don't know where you all have been that you think Stanford hasn't prostituted itself on academic standards. Without naming names, we have athletes who are barely functional across multiple sports that I know and/or have first-hand experience with: football, women's soccer, women's softball. I mean droolingly stupid, and totally indifferent to academics. I'm talking current and/or very recent too. I'd actually like to go non-scholarship D1 (like an Ivy) or D3. The athlete vs non-athlete divide at Stanford in an era of 4-5% admission rates is a bigger gulf (the Grand Canyon!) than it has ever been. 

I admit that I'm a bit two-faced on this because I root hard for Stanford football and am a men's basketball season ticketholder. I basically think of them as a pro sports franchise, because there's nothing academic about those teams (with some exceptions of course) as much as we like to pretend otherwise. And don't give me this "our football players are smarter than Alabama's" cr@p. That may or may not be true, but it's beside the point.

[GK3]

Nobody can be surprised by this, can they?  

You guys may get your wish that Stanford becomes a D3 athletic program.

Stanford and Cal could pay a massive price for not caring about and prioritizing winning in the "revenue" sports.

Stanford could probably get away with being an Independent, but Cal not so much.

OF, so what do you propose, that Stanford prostitute itself and do away withy academic standards for athletes and go the way of Alabama?
Stanford cares about winning but I don't think it is going to change its admission or other standards.  Was Stanford invited to join UCLA and USC? We may pay a price, but what option do we or did we have to prevent this?  The current state of college football and basketball is such as that there is little school loyalty at most places.  The transfer rules are such that guys are going to two or three schools in a four year career.  I don't see this as a path Stanford sports.  Stanford and big money sports don't have much in common philosophically.  I am mostly concerned about the lower or non revenue sports.

I don't know where you all have been that you think Stanford hasn't prostituted itself on academic standards. Without naming names, we have athletes who are barely functional across multiple sports that I know and/or have first-hand experience with: football, women's soccer, women's softball. I mean droolingly stupid, and totally indifferent to academics. I'm talking current and/or very recent too. I'd actually like to go non-scholarship D1 (like an Ivy) or D3. The athlete vs non-athlete divide at Stanford in an era of 4-5% admission rates is a bigger gulf (the Grand Canyon!) than it has ever been. 

I admit that I'm a bit two-faced on this because I root hard for Stanford football and am a men's basketball season ticketholder. I basically think of them as a pro sports franchise, because there's nothing academic about those teams (with some exceptions of course) as much as we like to pretend otherwise. And don't give me this "our football players are smarter than Alabama's" cr@p. That may or may not be true, but it's beside the point.

Based on current offspring enrolled and involved in athletics, I don't find your comments valid.

[GK3]

Nobody can be surprised by this, can they?  

You guys may get your wish that Stanford becomes a D3 athletic program.

Stanford and Cal could pay a massive price for not caring about and prioritizing winning in the "revenue" sports.

Stanford could probably get away with being an Independent, but Cal not so much.

OF, so what do you propose, that Stanford prostitute itself and do away withy academic standards for athletes and go the way of Alabama?
Stanford cares about winning but I don't think it is going to change its admission or other standards.  Was Stanford invited to join UCLA and USC? We may pay a price, but what option do we or did we have to prevent this?  The current state of college football and basketball is such as that there is little school loyalty at most places.  The transfer rules are such that guys are going to two or three schools in a four year career.  I don't see this as a path Stanford sports.  Stanford and big money sports don't have much in common philosophically.  I am mostly concerned about the lower or non revenue sports.

I don't know where you all have been that you think Stanford hasn't prostituted itself on academic standards. Without naming names, we have athletes who are barely functional across multiple sports that I know and/or have first-hand experience with: football, women's soccer, women's softball. I mean droolingly stupid, and totally indifferent to academics. I'm talking current and/or very recent too. I'd actually like to go non-scholarship D1 (like an Ivy) or D3. The athlete vs non-athlete divide at Stanford in an era of 4-5% admission rates is a bigger gulf (the Grand Canyon!) than it has ever been. 

I admit that I'm a bit two-faced on this because I root hard for Stanford football and am a men's basketball season ticketholder. I basically think of them as a pro sports franchise, because there's nothing academic about those teams (with some exceptions of course) as much as we like to pretend otherwise. And don't give me this "our football players are smarter than Alabama's" cr@p. That may or may not be true, but it's beside the point.

Based on current offspring enrolled and involved in athletics, I don't find your comments valid.

[jacket3ree]

So what next?  This reminds me of a breakup with a certain someone, I want to say sophomore year, so (yikes) 40 years ago.  She went for something better (lots 'o choices there), and my first reaction was to humiliate myself. (Looking at you in Seattle and Eugene.). But I got over that quickly and threw her shoes off the roof.

So how do we throw UCLA's and USC's shoes off the roof?  I get it - Pac12 was diving and they'll make bazillions playing football. UCLA can retire their debt with enough left over to bail out Cal. And don't take the effing mix tapes with you!  Bastards.  Contract, schmontract. Since they are taking their sweet selves to the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic, I say boycott them and good luck scheduling 12 games starting in July.

What revenge is there to be had?  Pac-X is not viable without the Los Angeles market. It's just plain stupid. There could be a dregs of the West conference with B12 leftovers. Or a dregs of the nation conference with remnant ACC teams once FSU, Clemson, and Miami bolt to the SEC and Duke and Carolina worm their way into the Big 20 for a southern footprint.

The writing is on the wall. There will be around 40 teams playing in the Bigs, with maybe 10 of those nationally competitive for million dollar high school prospects. The same four to six teams will be in the playoffs every year, and the same two to four teams will always win.

Football is all that matters in this world. Football isn't all that matters to Stanford. Stanford will leave that world.


....and start a west coast division of the Collegiate Sprint Football League.  Pure, entertaining, football.  Right before Plebe Summer, my son received a recruiting letter: 'We see you played high school football and are the right weight (175 pounds or less). Tryouts are....'

Glory to the normal sized!

A couple hundred Plebes tried out for 20 spots and he got one. Played four years and coached another. He was defensive coordinator as a 21 year old Second Lieutenant and was trained by Bill Belichick. By my count they lost three games in five years, won two titles, and he has memories and friends for a lifetime. We are still in touch with other parents six years after Commissioning. There must be a place for sorts is fun in the world, right?

I kind of checked out when Tech turned into Alabama's farm team, but my son and I still plan to go to South Bend the next time Navy is there.  Of course now there might not be a next time.

But if that riveting Rutgers-Bruin game is on in a bar somewhere, I'll probably watch.

[jacket3ree]

So what next?  This reminds me of a breakup with a certain someone, I want to say sophomore year, so (yikes) 40 years ago.  She went for something better (lots 'o choices there), and my first reaction was to humiliate myself. (Looking at you in Seattle and Eugene.). But I got over that quickly and threw her shoes off the roof.

So how do we throw UCLA's and USC's shoes off the roof?  I get it - Pac12 was diving and they'll make bazillions playing football. UCLA can retire their debt with enough left over to bail out Cal. And don't take the effing mix tapes with you!  Bastards.  Contract, schmontract. Since they are taking their sweet selves to the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic, I say boycott them and good luck scheduling 12 games starting in July.

What revenge is there to be had?  Pac-X is not viable without the Los Angeles market. It's just plain stupid. There could be a dregs of the West conference with B12 leftovers. Or a dregs of the nation conference with remnant ACC teams once FSU, Clemson, and Miami bolt to the SEC and Duke and Carolina worm their way into the Big 20 for a southern footprint.

The writing is on the wall. There will be around 40 teams playing in the Bigs, with maybe 10 of those nationally competitive for million dollar high school prospects. The same four to six teams will be in the playoffs every year, and the same two to four teams will always win.

Football is all that matters in this world. Football isn't all that matters to Stanford. Stanford will leave that world.


....and start a west coast division of the Collegiate Sprint Football League.  Pure, entertaining, football.  Right before Plebe Summer, my son received a recruiting letter: 'We see you played high school football and are the right weight (175 pounds or less). Tryouts are....'

Glory to the normal sized!

A couple hundred Plebes tried out for 20 spots and he got one. Played four years and coached another. He was defensive coordinator as a 21 year old Second Lieutenant and was trained by Bill Belichick. By my count they lost three games in five years, won two titles, and he has memories and friends for a lifetime. We are still in touch with other parents six years after Commissioning. There must be a place for sorts is fun in the world, right?

I kind of checked out when Tech turned into Alabama's farm team, but my son and I still plan to go to South Bend the next time Navy is there.  Of course now there might not be a next time.

But if that riveting Rutgers-Bruin game is on in a bar somewhere, I'll probably watch.

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/johncanzanobft/status/1542956359133515776?s=21&t=7Ot98s_vn48KkovjlIosaA[/tweet]

I’m guessing that this is driven by lawmakers alums of OSU and WSU, who know that they are dead in the water without there bigger brothers. Oregon and Washington aren’t going to be taken anywhere with OSU and WSU, who might have tradition, but are media deadweight.

BC

---

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/01/s...-and-more/

Lots of good stuff in there from Wilber, who has always been a piss poor sports reporter but a very good sports business reporter. Good description of the impact of two crucial Scott decisions as they pertain to this:
1) a decision to lock the PAC-12 into a 12-year contract
2) a decision to double down on the pac-12 nets instead of letting ESPN run it

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/johncanzanobft/status/1542956359133515776?s=21&t=7Ot98s_vn48KkovjlIosaA[/tweet]

I’m guessing that this is driven by lawmakers alums of OSU and WSU, who know that they are dead in the water without there bigger brothers. Oregon and Washington aren’t going to be taken anywhere with OSU and WSU, who might have tradition, but are media deadweight.

BC

---

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/01/s...-and-more/

Lots of good stuff in there from Wilber, who has always been a piss poor sports reporter but a very good sports business reporter. Good description of the impact of two crucial Scott decisions as they pertain to this:
1) a decision to lock the PAC-12 into a 12-year contract
2) a decision to double down on the pac-12 nets instead of letting ESPN run it

BC

[Softball Fan]

On a ESPN sports talk show some guy said Big 10 is focused on getting Notre Dame to join the conference and won't look too closely at any other schools until that possibility is exhausted one way or the other.

[Softball Fan]

On a ESPN sports talk show some guy said Big 10 is focused on getting Notre Dame to join the conference and won't look too closely at any other schools until that possibility is exhausted one way or the other.

[DocSavage87]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/johncanzanobft/status/1542956359133515776?s=21&t=7Ot98s_vn48KkovjlIosaA[/tweet]

I’m guessing that this is driven by lawmakers alums of OSU and WSU, who know that they are dead in the water without there bigger brothers. Oregon and Washington aren’t going to be taken anywhere with OSU and WSU, who might have tradition, but are media deadweight.

BC

---

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/01/s...-and-more/

Similar situation happened in Virginia regarding UVA (who was then in ACC) and VT when it was trying to get in.  They threatened UVa funding and forced them to make sure VT and UVA were tied.  One the ESPN analysts look at Stanford as desirable for B1G but kal not so much. Since B1G does want AAU membership, kal meets that bar while OSU and WSU do not.

[DocSavage87]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/johncanzanobft/status/1542956359133515776?s=21&t=7Ot98s_vn48KkovjlIosaA[/tweet]

I’m guessing that this is driven by lawmakers alums of OSU and WSU, who know that they are dead in the water without there bigger brothers. Oregon and Washington aren’t going to be taken anywhere with OSU and WSU, who might have tradition, but are media deadweight.

BC

---

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/01/s...-and-more/

Similar situation happened in Virginia regarding UVA (who was then in ACC) and VT when it was trying to get in.  They threatened UVa funding and forced them to make sure VT and UVA were tied.  One the ESPN analysts look at Stanford as desirable for B1G but kal not so much. Since B1G does want AAU membership, kal meets that bar while OSU and WSU do not.

[Mick]

I’m guessing that this is driven by lawmakers alums of OSU and WSU, who know that they are dead in the water without there bigger brothers. Oregon and Washington aren’t going to be taken anywhere with OSU and WSU, who might have tradition, but are media deadweight.

I'm guessing the same is not true for Arizona, Arizona State and...Northern Arizona.

---

On a ESPN sports talk show some guy said Big 10 is focused on getting Notre Dame to join the conference and won't look too closely at any other schools until that possibility is exhausted one way or the other.

Partnering Stanford and Notre Dame as Big 10 entrants might be interesting...

---

I don't know where you all have been that you think Stanford hasn't prostituted itself on academic standards. Without naming names, we have athletes who are barely functional across multiple sports that I know and/or have first-hand experience with: football, women's soccer, women's softball. I mean droolingly stupid, and totally indifferent to academics. I'm talking current and/or very recent too. I'd actually like to go non-scholarship D1 (like an Ivy) or D3. The athlete vs non-athlete divide at Stanford in an era of 4-5% admission rates is a bigger gulf (the Grand Canyon!) than it has ever been. 

I admit that I'm a bit two-faced on this because I root hard for Stanford football and am a men's basketball season ticketholder. I basically think of them as a pro sports franchise, because there's nothing academic about those teams (with some exceptions of course) as much as we like to pretend otherwise. And don't give me this "our football players are smarter than Alabama's" cr@p. That may or may not be true, but it's beside the point.

In the late 1990s, the Bootleg ran a comparison of SAT scores across universities and their football teams.  If anyone wants to dig it out, the Stanford team had the highest average SAT by a considerable margin.  Alabama was literally hundreds of points below.  More recently, the Atlanta Journal Constitution ran a comparison of football team SATs amongst public schools, and let's just say that Cal / Mich were considerably ahead of 'bama.

That said, Stanford does have dramatically reduced SAT standards for athletes, though still considerably higher than the admissions standards of virtually all other schools. When my son went to Princeton, the average SAT of his incoming frosh teammates was 400 points higher than that of their club teammate who attended Stanford (1880 vs. 2280).  But then, the Stanford player was an All-American, and no one on Princeton's team was close to that.  It's a tradeoff.

[Mick]

I’m guessing that this is driven by lawmakers alums of OSU and WSU, who know that they are dead in the water without there bigger brothers. Oregon and Washington aren’t going to be taken anywhere with OSU and WSU, who might have tradition, but are media deadweight.

I'm guessing the same is not true for Arizona, Arizona State and...Northern Arizona.

---

On a ESPN sports talk show some guy said Big 10 is focused on getting Notre Dame to join the conference and won't look too closely at any other schools until that possibility is exhausted one way or the other.

Partnering Stanford and Notre Dame as Big 10 entrants might be interesting...

---

I don't know where you all have been that you think Stanford hasn't prostituted itself on academic standards. Without naming names, we have athletes who are barely functional across multiple sports that I know and/or have first-hand experience with: football, women's soccer, women's softball. I mean droolingly stupid, and totally indifferent to academics. I'm talking current and/or very recent too. I'd actually like to go non-scholarship D1 (like an Ivy) or D3. The athlete vs non-athlete divide at Stanford in an era of 4-5% admission rates is a bigger gulf (the Grand Canyon!) than it has ever been. 

I admit that I'm a bit two-faced on this because I root hard for Stanford football and am a men's basketball season ticketholder. I basically think of them as a pro sports franchise, because there's nothing academic about those teams (with some exceptions of course) as much as we like to pretend otherwise. And don't give me this "our football players are smarter than Alabama's" cr@p. That may or may not be true, but it's beside the point.

In the late 1990s, the Bootleg ran a comparison of SAT scores across universities and their football teams.  If anyone wants to dig it out, the Stanford team had the highest average SAT by a considerable margin.  Alabama was literally hundreds of points below.  More recently, the Atlanta Journal Constitution ran a comparison of football team SATs amongst public schools, and let's just say that Cal / Mich were considerably ahead of 'bama.

That said, Stanford does have dramatically reduced SAT standards for athletes, though still considerably higher than the admissions standards of virtually all other schools. When my son went to Princeton, the average SAT of his incoming frosh teammates was 400 points higher than that of their club teammate who attended Stanford (1880 vs. 2280).  But then, the Stanford player was an All-American, and no one on Princeton's team was close to that.  It's a tradeoff.

[BostonCard]

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is the perfect off ramp for Stanford football.

I don’t deny that there have been compromises made to field a competitive football team, and that to some extent we’ve been haggling about the price, but I think continuing on this path is a bridge too far, at least for me. Others may feel differently, and that’s fine, but I think the combination of conferences relentlessly pursuing revenue maximization over all else (including student athlete welfare), the transfer portal making it functionally a free agent market, and NIL (and, particularly the establishment of collectives) and I think that’s just not what Stanford athletics is supposed to be about.

I hope some of the non-revenue sports can continue to thrive without the money that football brings in. It would be sad to lose the baby with the bath water, but in the end, I have been getting increasingly disillusioned so while I wouldn’t say this is the straw that broke the camel’s back, it is for me a convenient excuse to disengage.

BC

[BostonCard]

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is the perfect off ramp for Stanford football.

I don’t deny that there have been compromises made to field a competitive football team, and that to some extent we’ve been haggling about the price, but I think continuing on this path is a bridge too far, at least for me. Others may feel differently, and that’s fine, but I think the combination of conferences relentlessly pursuing revenue maximization over all else (including student athlete welfare), the transfer portal making it functionally a free agent market, and NIL (and, particularly the establishment of collectives) and I think that’s just not what Stanford athletics is supposed to be about.

I hope some of the non-revenue sports can continue to thrive without the money that football brings in. It would be sad to lose the baby with the bath water, but in the end, I have been getting increasingly disillusioned so while I wouldn’t say this is the straw that broke the camel’s back, it is for me a convenient excuse to disengage.

BC

[cardcrimson]

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is the perfect off ramp for Stanford football.

I don’t deny that there have been compromises made to field a competitive football team, and that to some extent we’ve been haggling about the price, but I think continuing on this path is a bridge too far, at least for me. Others may feel differently, and that’s fine, but I think the combination of conferences relentlessly pursuing revenue maximization over all else (including student athlete welfare), the transfer portal making it functionally a free agent market, and NIL (and, particularly the establishment of collectives) and I think that’s just not what Stanford athletics is supposed to be about.

I hope some of the non-revenue sports can continue to thrive without the money that football brings in. It would be sad to lose the baby with the bath water, but in the end, I have been getting increasingly disillusioned so while I wouldn’t say this is the straw that broke the camel’s back, it is for me a convenient excuse to disengage.

BC

Without a conference, where do the non-revenue athletes compete? 

From an economic perspective, non-revenue sports are a massive business. Not at the college level, per se, but at the youth level. Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Competitive Dance, Swim, Water Polo, etc etc etc. all have brobdingnagian participation across the country. You can't go to a hotel on a weekend and not have it filled with traveling teams. What happens if those sports vanish at the collegiate level?

[cardcrimson]

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is the perfect off ramp for Stanford football.

I don’t deny that there have been compromises made to field a competitive football team, and that to some extent we’ve been haggling about the price, but I think continuing on this path is a bridge too far, at least for me. Others may feel differently, and that’s fine, but I think the combination of conferences relentlessly pursuing revenue maximization over all else (including student athlete welfare), the transfer portal making it functionally a free agent market, and NIL (and, particularly the establishment of collectives) and I think that’s just not what Stanford athletics is supposed to be about.

I hope some of the non-revenue sports can continue to thrive without the money that football brings in. It would be sad to lose the baby with the bath water, but in the end, I have been getting increasingly disillusioned so while I wouldn’t say this is the straw that broke the camel’s back, it is for me a convenient excuse to disengage.

BC

Without a conference, where do the non-revenue athletes compete? 

From an economic perspective, non-revenue sports are a massive business. Not at the college level, per se, but at the youth level. Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Competitive Dance, Swim, Water Polo, etc etc etc. all have brobdingnagian participation across the country. You can't go to a hotel on a weekend and not have it filled with traveling teams. What happens if those sports vanish at the collegiate level?

[Goose]

From an economic perspective, non-revenue sports are a massive business. Not at the college level, per se, but at the youth level. Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Competitive Dance, Swim, Water Polo, etc etc etc. all have of immense proportions participation across the country. You can't go to a hotel on a weekend and not have it filled with traveling teams. What happens if those sports vanish at the collegiate level?

Valid question, but in most cases I think the answer is "Not much changes.". The vast, vast majority of the kids participating in those High School and lower programs have neither the talent or the desire to participate at the college level. These are fun activities to do as a kid. You know (in most cases) you are too slow, too short, too weak, too something to compete at the next level. Yes, a few kids can, but most can't, know they can't, yet they show up at the travel tournaments and compete anyway.

[Goose]

From an economic perspective, non-revenue sports are a massive business. Not at the college level, per se, but at the youth level. Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Competitive Dance, Swim, Water Polo, etc etc etc. all have of immense proportions participation across the country. You can't go to a hotel on a weekend and not have it filled with traveling teams. What happens if those sports vanish at the collegiate level?

Valid question, but in most cases I think the answer is "Not much changes.". The vast, vast majority of the kids participating in those High School and lower programs have neither the talent or the desire to participate at the college level. These are fun activities to do as a kid. You know (in most cases) you are too slow, too short, too weak, too something to compete at the next level. Yes, a few kids can, but most can't, know they can't, yet they show up at the travel tournaments and compete anyway.

[OutsiderFan]

It is troubling Stanford has put out no statement about USCLA leaving the Pac.

Anyway, the chessboard at least in part, appears to be:

* The Big Ten is doing nothing more until Notre Dame decides if it will join the Big Ten or not. I read Notre Dame has to pay the ACC $120M to get out of its ACC membership agreement. It might make more sense in the long run to bolt, but writing a check for $120 million to leave the ACC probably is not an easy decision to make. 

* Given Clemson and Florida State are now banging on the SEC's door and Miami, maybe UNC won't be far behind, that decision probably gets a lot less difficult for ND, no matter how painful it is in the near term and how badly they don't want to join a conference.

* Oregon & Washington must be in same conference as OSU and WSU, per their state governments.

* Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and ASU all seem like natural fits for the Big 12, so I'd be concerned the Big 12 will poach those schools, leaving the Pac with 6 members, but it's also possible the Big XII could move on all the remaining Pac schools too.

* Cal and Stanford could balk at playing in a conference with Baylor and TCU.

* It seems logical USCLA would want to get Cal and Stanford in the Big Ten if at all possible, to mitigate travel and preserve the north/south dynamic they've always had.

* I read on the Cal board that the UC Regents may see UCLA going to the Big Ten as a means to get the money to pay off Ca's stadium debt that the regents are responsible for if Cal can't pay.  I don't know how this factors into conference alignment, but it is a consideration for UC.

* Stanford probably has the most attractive profile of any other remaining Pac team for the Big Ten given Oregon and Washington's "poison pills."

Personally, the Pac will be dead to me if any of Boise, SDSU, Fresno, SJS, Nevada, UNLV, or BYU are in the same conference with Stanford.

[OutsiderFan]

It is troubling Stanford has put out no statement about USCLA leaving the Pac.

Anyway, the chessboard at least in part, appears to be:

* The Big Ten is doing nothing more until Notre Dame decides if it will join the Big Ten or not. I read Notre Dame has to pay the ACC $120M to get out of its ACC membership agreement. It might make more sense in the long run to bolt, but writing a check for $120 million to leave the ACC probably is not an easy decision to make. 

* Given Clemson and Florida State are now banging on the SEC's door and Miami, maybe UNC won't be far behind, that decision probably gets a lot less difficult for ND, no matter how painful it is in the near term and how badly they don't want to join a conference.

* Oregon & Washington must be in same conference as OSU and WSU, per their state governments.

* Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and ASU all seem like natural fits for the Big 12, so I'd be concerned the Big 12 will poach those schools, leaving the Pac with 6 members, but it's also possible the Big XII could move on all the remaining Pac schools too.

* Cal and Stanford could balk at playing in a conference with Baylor and TCU.

* It seems logical USCLA would want to get Cal and Stanford in the Big Ten if at all possible, to mitigate travel and preserve the north/south dynamic they've always had.

* I read on the Cal board that the UC Regents may see UCLA going to the Big Ten as a means to get the money to pay off Ca's stadium debt that the regents are responsible for if Cal can't pay.  I don't know how this factors into conference alignment, but it is a consideration for UC.

* Stanford probably has the most attractive profile of any other remaining Pac team for the Big Ten given Oregon and Washington's "poison pills."

Personally, the Pac will be dead to me if any of Boise, SDSU, Fresno, SJS, Nevada, UNLV, or BYU are in the same conference with Stanford.

[Maple Leaf]

It will be interesting to see if USC and UCLA look to their former conference members to fill out their 2024 out of conference football schedules and beyond. Do they try to stay connected to UW, UO, Cal, Stanford or one or two of the others? I am sure the condoms and the teddy bears will want to play their out of conference games at home. The condoms will have two slots since I assume they will continue with the domers, the teddy bears will have three unless the big 10 reduces the number of conference games.

Very good article in the Athletic about the influence/demands of ESPN and FOX on the SEC and Big 10 to add the teams they added.

[Maple Leaf]

It will be interesting to see if USC and UCLA look to their former conference members to fill out their 2024 out of conference football schedules and beyond. Do they try to stay connected to UW, UO, Cal, Stanford or one or two of the others? I am sure the condoms and the teddy bears will want to play their out of conference games at home. The condoms will have two slots since I assume they will continue with the domers, the teddy bears will have three unless the big 10 reduces the number of conference games.

Very good article in the Athletic about the influence/demands of ESPN and FOX on the SEC and Big 10 to add the teams they added.

[BostonCard]

Just FYI, I don’t think there is an actual linking between Oregon and OSU, and Washington and WSU. I think that’s something that legislators in their respective states are pushing, but you can also imagine there is pushback to that. Let’s face it, you probably have OSU and WSU alums deathly afraid that Oregon and Washington will leave them behind, while you have Oregon and Washington alums deathly afraid that OSU and WSU will be an albatross around their necks.

BC

[BostonCard]

Just FYI, I don’t think there is an actual linking between Oregon and OSU, and Washington and WSU. I think that’s something that legislators in their respective states are pushing, but you can also imagine there is pushback to that. Let’s face it, you probably have OSU and WSU alums deathly afraid that Oregon and Washington will leave them behind, while you have Oregon and Washington alums deathly afraid that OSU and WSU will be an albatross around their necks.

BC

[BigJohn043]

It is troubling Stanford has put out no statement about USCLA leaving the Pac.

Anyway, the chessboard at least in part, appears to be:

* The Big Ten is doing nothing more until Notre Dame decides if it will join the Big Ten or not. I read Notre Dame has to pay the ACC $120M to get out of its ACC membership agreement. It might make more sense in the long run to bolt, but writing a check for $120 million to leave the ACC probably is not an easy decision to make. 

* Given Clemson and Florida State are now banging on the SEC's door and Miami, maybe UNC won't be far behind, that decision probably gets a lot less difficult for ND, no matter how painful it is in the near term and how badly they don't want to join a conference.

* Oregon & Washington must be in same conference as OSU and WSU, per their state governments.

* Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and ASU all seem like natural fits for the Big 12, so I'd be concerned the Big 12 will poach those schools, leaving the Pac with 6 members, but it's also possible the Big XII could move on all the remaining Pac schools too.

* Cal and Stanford could balk at playing in a conference with Baylor and TCU.

* It seems logical USCLA would want to get Cal and Stanford in the Big Ten if at all possible, to mitigate travel and preserve the north/south dynamic they've always had.

* I read on the Cal board that the UC Regents may see UCLA going to the Big Ten as a means to get the money to pay off Ca's stadium debt that the regents are responsible for if Cal can't pay.  I don't know how this factors into conference alignment, but it is a consideration for UC.

* Stanford probably has the most attractive profile of any other remaining Pac team for the Big Ten given Oregon and Washington's "poison pills."

Personally, the Pac will be dead to me if any of Boise, SDSU, Fresno, SJS, Nevada, UNLV, or BYU are in the same conference with Stanford.

FWIW, my sense is that it is a good thing that we have made no statement.  Everyone is clearly talking to everyone.  If we are staying quiet it is probably because the B10 is a potential option.

Not really sure I believe the UW & UO poison pills.  Heck, they already reached out to the B10 and were told not now.  I am sure WSU and OSU will try but I am skeptical they can actually stop it.  UCLA was supposed to have the cal poison pill and that didn't happen.

I still believe we are a very attractive option.  I also don't believe that USC / UCLA would join the B10 if there wasn't room for a couple of decent away games.....

[BigJohn043]

It is troubling Stanford has put out no statement about USCLA leaving the Pac.

Anyway, the chessboard at least in part, appears to be:

* The Big Ten is doing nothing more until Notre Dame decides if it will join the Big Ten or not. I read Notre Dame has to pay the ACC $120M to get out of its ACC membership agreement. It might make more sense in the long run to bolt, but writing a check for $120 million to leave the ACC probably is not an easy decision to make. 

* Given Clemson and Florida State are now banging on the SEC's door and Miami, maybe UNC won't be far behind, that decision probably gets a lot less difficult for ND, no matter how painful it is in the near term and how badly they don't want to join a conference.

* Oregon & Washington must be in same conference as OSU and WSU, per their state governments.

* Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and ASU all seem like natural fits for the Big 12, so I'd be concerned the Big 12 will poach those schools, leaving the Pac with 6 members, but it's also possible the Big XII could move on all the remaining Pac schools too.

* Cal and Stanford could balk at playing in a conference with Baylor and TCU.

* It seems logical USCLA would want to get Cal and Stanford in the Big Ten if at all possible, to mitigate travel and preserve the north/south dynamic they've always had.

* I read on the Cal board that the UC Regents may see UCLA going to the Big Ten as a means to get the money to pay off Ca's stadium debt that the regents are responsible for if Cal can't pay.  I don't know how this factors into conference alignment, but it is a consideration for UC.

* Stanford probably has the most attractive profile of any other remaining Pac team for the Big Ten given Oregon and Washington's "poison pills."

Personally, the Pac will be dead to me if any of Boise, SDSU, Fresno, SJS, Nevada, UNLV, or BYU are in the same conference with Stanford.

FWIW, my sense is that it is a good thing that we have made no statement.  Everyone is clearly talking to everyone.  If we are staying quiet it is probably because the B10 is a potential option.

Not really sure I believe the UW & UO poison pills.  Heck, they already reached out to the B10 and were told not now.  I am sure WSU and OSU will try but I am skeptical they can actually stop it.  UCLA was supposed to have the cal poison pill and that didn't happen.

I still believe we are a very attractive option.  I also don't believe that USC / UCLA would join the B10 if there wasn't room for a couple of decent away games.....

[DocSavage87]

From a $$ perspective to state legislators, does the additional $$ in Oregon to B1G more than compensate for the decreased $ of OSU in a crumbling Pac12 (and the increased travel $)?  Same for UW and WSU.

[DocSavage87]

From a $$ perspective to state legislators, does the additional $$ in Oregon to B1G more than compensate for the decreased $ of OSU in a crumbling Pac12 (and the increased travel $)?  Same for UW and WSU.

[oman]

* Cal and Stanford could balk at playing in a conference with Baylor and TCU.



Personally, the Pac will be dead to me if any of Boise, SDSU, Fresno, SJS, Nevada, UNLV, or BYU are in the same conference with Stanford.

Don't understand this thinking at all.  Other than travel expenses as to the first point.

---

My loyalties are to a homewrecker (Texas) and a stepchild (Stanford).

Good god football has been dismantled and my enthusiasm is waning.  But have always enjoyed the Director's Cuppish strengths of my two teams.  Stanford just needs to keep quiet and figure out a way.

[oman]

* Cal and Stanford could balk at playing in a conference with Baylor and TCU.



Personally, the Pac will be dead to me if any of Boise, SDSU, Fresno, SJS, Nevada, UNLV, or BYU are in the same conference with Stanford.

Don't understand this thinking at all.  Other than travel expenses as to the first point.

---

My loyalties are to a homewrecker (Texas) and a stepchild (Stanford).

Good god football has been dismantled and my enthusiasm is waning.  But have always enjoyed the Director's Cuppish strengths of my two teams.  Stanford just needs to keep quiet and figure out a way.

[cardcrimson]

From an economic perspective, non-revenue sports are a massive business. Not at the college level, per se, but at the youth level. Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Competitive Dance, Swim, Water Polo, etc etc etc. all have of immense proportions participation across the country. You can't go to a hotel on a weekend and not have it filled with traveling teams. What happens if those sports vanish at the collegiate level?

Valid question, but in most cases I think the answer is "Not much changes.". The vast, vast majority of the kids participating in those High School and lower programs have neither the talent or the desire to participate at the college level. These are fun activities to do as a kid. You know (in most cases) you are too slow, too short, too weak, too something to compete at the next level. Yes, a few kids can, but most can't, know they can't, yet they show up at the travel tournaments and compete anyway.

In many cases, it's not a question of an athlete's desire or talent, it's a question of their parent's desire and perception of talent as they're the one's footing the bill. If the parent thinks their kid has a shot at playing in college (and it's in the coach's best interest to promote that idea), they will continue to pay the bills. 

Sometimes there's a chance that playing may actually facilitate acceptance to a college, as well. At least for girl's, Title IX has helped those chances immensely. There are 34 D1 women's programs with 8 scholarships per school, while there are only 22 men's D1 programs with 4.5 scholarships per. My daughter is a rising junior and a pretty good water polo goalie. She has a shot; perhaps not a scholarship, but at least an open door to a decent school where she can play. If those opportunities weren't there, she'd still be playing, but we wouldn't be spending nearly as much on her club team, travel and additional clinics and training.

[cardcrimson]

From an economic perspective, non-revenue sports are a massive business. Not at the college level, per se, but at the youth level. Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Competitive Dance, Swim, Water Polo, etc etc etc. all have of immense proportions participation across the country. You can't go to a hotel on a weekend and not have it filled with traveling teams. What happens if those sports vanish at the collegiate level?

Valid question, but in most cases I think the answer is "Not much changes.". The vast, vast majority of the kids participating in those High School and lower programs have neither the talent or the desire to participate at the college level. These are fun activities to do as a kid. You know (in most cases) you are too slow, too short, too weak, too something to compete at the next level. Yes, a few kids can, but most can't, know they can't, yet they show up at the travel tournaments and compete anyway.

In many cases, it's not a question of an athlete's desire or talent, it's a question of their parent's desire and perception of talent as they're the one's footing the bill. If the parent thinks their kid has a shot at playing in college (and it's in the coach's best interest to promote that idea), they will continue to pay the bills. 

Sometimes there's a chance that playing may actually facilitate acceptance to a college, as well. At least for girl's, Title IX has helped those chances immensely. There are 34 D1 women's programs with 8 scholarships per school, while there are only 22 men's D1 programs with 4.5 scholarships per. My daughter is a rising junior and a pretty good water polo goalie. She has a shot; perhaps not a scholarship, but at least an open door to a decent school where she can play. If those opportunities weren't there, she'd still be playing, but we wouldn't be spending nearly as much on her club team, travel and additional clinics and training.