[Softball Fan]

Sure would be nice to see a Stanford leader make a statement about how Stanford intends to move forward in the new CFB world. It’s shockingly poor leadership behavior to not publicly address something so significant and leave so many people who care about the topic in the dark left to speculate.

In the latest US News & World academic rankings Stanford is tie with Harvard and Yale.  Stanford doesn't need football to promote its mission.   I don't think football is a priority for leaders in the Stanford administration.

Eventually the football factories will leave the NCAA.  Then ADs will collectively police academic compliance.  That doesn't fit into the Stanford model. Stanford should go to Division II football.  Walk away from the emerging culture of non-stop chasing of NIL deals and constant scouring of transfer portals.   I believe alums will come through and financially support WBB, WVB, and many of the Olympic sports.

[Softball Fan]

Sure would be nice to see a Stanford leader make a statement about how Stanford intends to move forward in the new CFB world. It’s shockingly poor leadership behavior to not publicly address something so significant and leave so many people who care about the topic in the dark left to speculate.

In the latest US News & World academic rankings Stanford is tie with Harvard and Yale.  Stanford doesn't need football to promote its mission.   I don't think football is a priority for leaders in the Stanford administration.

Eventually the football factories will leave the NCAA.  Then ADs will collectively police academic compliance.  That doesn't fit into the Stanford model. Stanford should go to Division II football.  Walk away from the emerging culture of non-stop chasing of NIL deals and constant scouring of transfer portals.   I believe alums will come through and financially support WBB, WVB, and many of the Olympic sports.

[81alum]

The problem is not just whether football should be eliminated or downgraded, but whether that can be done without doing the same for all the other sports.  It would be a shame if the problems with football meant we had to go to Div II or Div III in WBB, WVB, men's and women's soccer, etc.  Quite apart from budgetary requirements, is it possible to be DIV I in some sports and Div II or III in others?  Perhaps limping along in football is the price that has to be paid to have top teams in the other sports that have not been as corrupted as football has.

[81alum]

The problem is not just whether football should be eliminated or downgraded, but whether that can be done without doing the same for all the other sports.  It would be a shame if the problems with football meant we had to go to Div II or Div III in WBB, WVB, men's and women's soccer, etc.  Quite apart from budgetary requirements, is it possible to be DIV I in some sports and Div II or III in others?  Perhaps limping along in football is the price that has to be paid to have top teams in the other sports that have not been as corrupted as football has.

[Canalejas]

Division II is not an option. Perhaps people mean downgrading to FCS (formerly Division I-AA,) which keeps all other sports in Division I.  

Take a look at the other schools in CA in D2.  

There are two D2 conferences in CA, and neither one would be a good fit for Stanford:  

• CCAA (Cal Poly Humboldt, Cal Poly Pomona, Chico State, Cal State Dominguez Hills, Cal State East Bay, Cal State LA, Cal State Monterey Bay, Cal State San Bernardino, Cal State San Marcos, SFSU, and Sonoma State.)  
  
• Pacific West Conference (Academy of Art, Azusa Pacific, Biola, Concordia Irvine, Dominican, Fresno Pacific, Holy Names, Point Loma Nazarene, and Westmont College.) 
  

And none of those schools have football.  

Hanging out in D3 would give us the following options:  

• SCIAC (Caltech, Cal Lutheran, Chapman, Claremont-Mudd-Scripps, Pomona-Pitzer, Occidental, La Verne, Redlands, and Whittier.)  
  
• Coast-to-Coast, home to UC Santa Cruz plus seven schools east of the Mississippi. 
  

Downgrading football to FCS but staying in D1 would give us the following options with other CA schools:  

• Big West (UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, Cal Poly SLO, Cal State Fullerton, CSU Bakersfield, CSUN, and Long Beach State.)  
  
• WCC (Pacific, Santa Clara, USF, St. Mary's, Pepperdine, USD)  
  
• WAC (Cal Baptist)
  
• Big Sky (Sacramento State)  
  

Going the FCS route, especially if Cal comes along, I think it'd make the most sense to poach the Big West UC schools and start a new league.  

But, none of those options seem as good as still hoping to keep Stanford-Cal-UCLA-USC together by going to the Big Ten. Hopefully with enough other west coast schools also going to make crossing time zones less of a talking point.

[Canalejas]

Division II is not an option. Perhaps people mean downgrading to FCS (formerly Division I-AA,) which keeps all other sports in Division I.  

Take a look at the other schools in CA in D2.  

There are two D2 conferences in CA, and neither one would be a good fit for Stanford:  

• CCAA (Cal Poly Humboldt, Cal Poly Pomona, Chico State, Cal State Dominguez Hills, Cal State East Bay, Cal State LA, Cal State Monterey Bay, Cal State San Bernardino, Cal State San Marcos, SFSU, and Sonoma State.)  
  
• Pacific West Conference (Academy of Art, Azusa Pacific, Biola, Concordia Irvine, Dominican, Fresno Pacific, Holy Names, Point Loma Nazarene, and Westmont College.) 
  

And none of those schools have football.  

Hanging out in D3 would give us the following options:  

• SCIAC (Caltech, Cal Lutheran, Chapman, Claremont-Mudd-Scripps, Pomona-Pitzer, Occidental, La Verne, Redlands, and Whittier.)  
  
• Coast-to-Coast, home to UC Santa Cruz plus seven schools east of the Mississippi. 
  

Downgrading football to FCS but staying in D1 would give us the following options with other CA schools:  

• Big West (UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, Cal Poly SLO, Cal State Fullerton, CSU Bakersfield, CSUN, and Long Beach State.)  
  
• WCC (Pacific, Santa Clara, USF, St. Mary's, Pepperdine, USD)  
  
• WAC (Cal Baptist)
  
• Big Sky (Sacramento State)  
  

Going the FCS route, especially if Cal comes along, I think it'd make the most sense to poach the Big West UC schools and start a new league.  

But, none of those options seem as good as still hoping to keep Stanford-Cal-UCLA-USC together by going to the Big Ten. Hopefully with enough other west coast schools also going to make crossing time zones less of a talking point.

[Phogge]

Big Sky would be the only conference that makes sense. 12 members already, Add Stanford and Cal. Big Sky would drool at that prospect.

However never ever, ever, ever, ever schedule North Dakota State.

I think it's a great idea. 11 conference games, schedule SJS every year and take a road money game anywhere with a humongous payout (and a drubbing). You will still get a few really good players who TRULY respect the Stanford degree and you can still draw 20,000 people who like college football and 40,000 for Big Game.

[Phogge]

Big Sky would be the only conference that makes sense. 12 members already, Add Stanford and Cal. Big Sky would drool at that prospect.

However never ever, ever, ever, ever schedule North Dakota State.

I think it's a great idea. 11 conference games, schedule SJS every year and take a road money game anywhere with a humongous payout (and a drubbing). You will still get a few really good players who TRULY respect the Stanford degree and you can still draw 20,000 people who like college football and 40,000 for Big Game.

[Mick]

Sure would be nice to see a Stanford leader make a statement about how Stanford intends to move forward in the new CFB world. It’s shockingly poor leadership behavior to not publicly address something so significant and leave so many people who care about the topic in the dark left to speculate.

In the latest US News & World academic rankings Stanford is tie with Harvard and Yale.  Stanford doesn't need football to promote its mission.   I don't think football is a priority for leaders in the Stanford administration.

Eventually the football factories will leave the NCAA.  Then ADs will collectively police academic compliance.  That doesn't fit into the Stanford model. Stanford should go to Division II football.  Walk away from the emerging culture of non-stop chasing of NIL deals and constant scouring of transfer portals.   I believe alums will come through and financially support WBB, WVB, and many of the Olympic sports.

Stanford can't go DII in football.  That's what killed Santa Clara's program.  A school has to be in the same division for all varsity sports.

[Mick]

Sure would be nice to see a Stanford leader make a statement about how Stanford intends to move forward in the new CFB world. It’s shockingly poor leadership behavior to not publicly address something so significant and leave so many people who care about the topic in the dark left to speculate.

In the latest US News & World academic rankings Stanford is tie with Harvard and Yale.  Stanford doesn't need football to promote its mission.   I don't think football is a priority for leaders in the Stanford administration.

Eventually the football factories will leave the NCAA.  Then ADs will collectively police academic compliance.  That doesn't fit into the Stanford model. Stanford should go to Division II football.  Walk away from the emerging culture of non-stop chasing of NIL deals and constant scouring of transfer portals.   I believe alums will come through and financially support WBB, WVB, and many of the Olympic sports.

Stanford can't go DII in football.  That's what killed Santa Clara's program.  A school has to be in the same division for all varsity sports.

[gailtate]

Sure would be nice to see a Stanford leader make a statement about how Stanford intends to move forward in the new CFB world. It’s shockingly poor leadership behavior to not publicly address something so significant and leave so many people who care about the topic in the dark left to speculate.

In the latest US News & World academic rankings Stanford is tie with Harvard and Yale.  Stanford doesn't need football to promote its mission.   I don't think football is a priority for leaders in the Stanford administration.

Eventually the football factories will leave the NCAA.  Then ADs will collectively police academic compliance.  That doesn't fit into the Stanford model. Stanford should go to Division II football.  Walk away from the emerging culture of non-stop chasing of NIL deals and constant scouring of transfer portals.   I believe alums will come through and financially support WBB, WVB, and many of the Olympic sports.

Stanford can't go DII in football.  That's what killed Santa Clara's program.  A school has to be in the same division for all varsity sports.

A moment of reckoning is right up ahead (cue Rod Serling) cuz if there's is ONE thing the mandarins understand about the Real World outside academia, it is M-O-N-E-Y. And the moment when the reckoning reveals the full implication$ of jettisoning Big Football, we will see a scrambling, desperate, apoplectic institution the likes of which have never been witnessed. This'll be must-see TV.

[gailtate]

Sure would be nice to see a Stanford leader make a statement about how Stanford intends to move forward in the new CFB world. It’s shockingly poor leadership behavior to not publicly address something so significant and leave so many people who care about the topic in the dark left to speculate.

In the latest US News & World academic rankings Stanford is tie with Harvard and Yale.  Stanford doesn't need football to promote its mission.   I don't think football is a priority for leaders in the Stanford administration.

Eventually the football factories will leave the NCAA.  Then ADs will collectively police academic compliance.  That doesn't fit into the Stanford model. Stanford should go to Division II football.  Walk away from the emerging culture of non-stop chasing of NIL deals and constant scouring of transfer portals.   I believe alums will come through and financially support WBB, WVB, and many of the Olympic sports.

Stanford can't go DII in football.  That's what killed Santa Clara's program.  A school has to be in the same division for all varsity sports.

A moment of reckoning is right up ahead (cue Rod Serling) cuz if there's is ONE thing the mandarins understand about the Real World outside academia, it is M-O-N-E-Y. And the moment when the reckoning reveals the full implication$ of jettisoning Big Football, we will see a scrambling, desperate, apoplectic institution the likes of which have never been witnessed. This'll be must-see TV.

[Phogge]

Mick, Big Sky is FBS. I think that they could do that and maintain the other sports in D1.

[Phogge]

Mick, Big Sky is FBS. I think that they could do that and maintain the other sports in D1.

[Mick]

Mick, Big Sky is FBS. I think that they could do that and maintain the other sports in D1.

Big Sky is FCS.  And I was responding to the DII comment in the prior post, not FCS/FBS schools.

[Mick]

Mick, Big Sky is FBS. I think that they could do that and maintain the other sports in D1.

Big Sky is FCS.  And I was responding to the DII comment in the prior post, not FCS/FBS schools.

[CardinalSagehen]

- APB National Anthem - close to gone as the trumpet players have really been lacking the last few years

Not sure how many games you attended in person, but last year's trumpet soloist was outstanding.

I think the OP was referring to a major blunder in the playing of the National Anthem before last Saturday’s game. I heard it, too.  

That said, the soloist from the 2016-2017 era is an incredibly nice and generous dude that mentored my son over the course of six months last year for his 8th grade project on the physics of roller coasters. I don’t remember his trumpet playing, as it is not something that I track very closely before big games. But in general, I am now inclined to support all lead trumpet players from the band, just by association.

[CardinalSagehen]

- APB National Anthem - close to gone as the trumpet players have really been lacking the last few years

Not sure how many games you attended in person, but last year's trumpet soloist was outstanding.

I think the OP was referring to a major blunder in the playing of the National Anthem before last Saturday’s game. I heard it, too.  

That said, the soloist from the 2016-2017 era is an incredibly nice and generous dude that mentored my son over the course of six months last year for his 8th grade project on the physics of roller coasters. I don’t remember his trumpet playing, as it is not something that I track very closely before big games. But in general, I am now inclined to support all lead trumpet players from the band, just by association.

[Phogge]

Mick, Big Sky is FBS. I think that they could do that and maintain the other sports in D1.

Big Sky is FCS.  And I was responding to the DII comment in the prior post, not FCS/FBS schools.

Noted. I mix up FCS and FBS. I prefer D1 and 1-AA.

[Phogge]

Mick, Big Sky is FBS. I think that they could do that and maintain the other sports in D1.

Big Sky is FCS.  And I was responding to the DII comment in the prior post, not FCS/FBS schools.

Noted. I mix up FCS and FBS. I prefer D1 and 1-AA.

[MVCard]

For the record, 
ASU took away seats in their recent renovation.  Capacity was above 70K until 2013, but after a major renovation it was reduced to 53,599.
USC (really the City of LA) did too.  It was 92,000 when Tavita did his thing.   But after their major renovation it now sits at 77,500
Husky stadium's major 2013 renovation took away more than 2,000 from the prior capacity.   72,500 down to 70,138.
The Rose Bowl was above 100K back when Willingham took the 1999 team to Pasadena.   It has been getting smaller with each renovation.   For a Rose Bowl game capacity is now just above 90K, but official capacity for UCLA games is now just under 70,000 thanks to semi-permanent tarps.
Stanford fans have been there and done that with the tarp strategy.  :(
Though in 2024 maybe they will be able to replace the tarps with 20,000+ screaming midwestern fans cheering on the road team.
Arizona's stadium had a range between 56,000 and 58,000 until 2019.  Now after a renovation capacity is at 50,800

So the majority of the other Pac-10 programs also reduced capacity.
FWIW - Like at Stanford most of the renovations included adding more luxury suites.

Stanford could fix the attendance problem if they were serious about improving the game day experience:
- Take hard line with the conference re: game times... 5 PM kickoffs to get out of the afternoon youth sports slots and get done before kids turn into pumpkins.  Gotta do more to get more families able to attend.
- Free parking... someone write a check and/or sponsor it.  I'm ok with "Game Day Parking brought to you by Google Or Any Other Successful Stanford Startup"
- Return the LSJUMB to Incomparable status - admit more musicians, and fewer people who do the truly stupid things that we've seen in the papers.  Free housing from the week before football season starts until the normal start of undergrad housing; multiple fully funded road trips as carrots.  Winning football team also helps with Band recruiting.  Revisit show format & do some serious introspection on what the audience actually wants to see/hear.  Band is the soundtrack to the stadium experience - must recover ASAP from the COVID and culture impacts, and do better.
- Change the pricing structure for tickets. Lower bowl sidelines can still be where the money is made - perhaps even more-so - but price the upper deck and end zones to sell.  Must appeal to a wider fan base.  I think the university has gone way too deep into the "we're elite" thing and it's turning people off.  Feels like when we channel blue collar in all aspects, stuff works (on and off the field).

Fill the stadium, and I think you take away one of the big critiques that sends athletes to other schools.

[MVCard]

For the record, 
ASU took away seats in their recent renovation.  Capacity was above 70K until 2013, but after a major renovation it was reduced to 53,599.
USC (really the City of LA) did too.  It was 92,000 when Tavita did his thing.   But after their major renovation it now sits at 77,500
Husky stadium's major 2013 renovation took away more than 2,000 from the prior capacity.   72,500 down to 70,138.
The Rose Bowl was above 100K back when Willingham took the 1999 team to Pasadena.   It has been getting smaller with each renovation.   For a Rose Bowl game capacity is now just above 90K, but official capacity for UCLA games is now just under 70,000 thanks to semi-permanent tarps.
Stanford fans have been there and done that with the tarp strategy.  :(
Though in 2024 maybe they will be able to replace the tarps with 20,000+ screaming midwestern fans cheering on the road team.
Arizona's stadium had a range between 56,000 and 58,000 until 2019.  Now after a renovation capacity is at 50,800

So the majority of the other Pac-10 programs also reduced capacity.
FWIW - Like at Stanford most of the renovations included adding more luxury suites.

Stanford could fix the attendance problem if they were serious about improving the game day experience:
- Take hard line with the conference re: game times... 5 PM kickoffs to get out of the afternoon youth sports slots and get done before kids turn into pumpkins.  Gotta do more to get more families able to attend.
- Free parking... someone write a check and/or sponsor it.  I'm ok with "Game Day Parking brought to you by Google Or Any Other Successful Stanford Startup"
- Return the LSJUMB to Incomparable status - admit more musicians, and fewer people who do the truly stupid things that we've seen in the papers.  Free housing from the week before football season starts until the normal start of undergrad housing; multiple fully funded road trips as carrots.  Winning football team also helps with Band recruiting.  Revisit show format & do some serious introspection on what the audience actually wants to see/hear.  Band is the soundtrack to the stadium experience - must recover ASAP from the COVID and culture impacts, and do better.
- Change the pricing structure for tickets. Lower bowl sidelines can still be where the money is made - perhaps even more-so - but price the upper deck and end zones to sell.  Must appeal to a wider fan base.  I think the university has gone way too deep into the "we're elite" thing and it's turning people off.  Feels like when we channel blue collar in all aspects, stuff works (on and off the field).

Fill the stadium, and I think you take away one of the big critiques that sends athletes to other schools.

[Phogge]

If you want to win in D1 you have to find another Harballs. Only way it happens.

[Phogge]

If you want to win in D1 you have to find another Harballs. Only way it happens.

[Snorlax94]

Maybe I missed something, but it feels like this thread is really jumping the gun and assuming the end of the Pac 12 is coming. Is it understood the Pac 12 is “ending” if USC and UCLA leave?

First, is it 100% yet that they are leaving? Last I saw, Wilner thought there was still a 10-15% chance it wouldn’t go through (at least, for UCLA).

Second, I’d argue the tradeoffs just changed dramatically with the 12 team CFB playoff. Would it be better for USC to be part of the Pac 12 and make semi-regular appearances in the CFB or be in the Big 10 and never go? Which path sells more tickets and jerseys and pulls in more donations?

I would argue the UCLA and USC presidents/chancellors haven’t thought through the long-term implications of this plan. In the long run, going to the Big 10 will be disastrous. Instead of having 1-2 trips per year to Notre Dame/Central Florida/Vanderbilt, they will have 5-6 trips per year to Ohio State/Michigan. Their non-conference games may be against Stanford, USC/UCLA and Notre Dame. So they will be constantly jetlagged, exhausted, they will lose more than a week of practice due to travel, and they will have the most brutal schedules in the nation. Other Big 10 teams will fly out to sunny CA once a year, but the LA Traitorous Two will fly out to the Midwest 4-6 times a year. Sports with lots of games — like basketball and baseball — will be ruined by all the travel. Eventually, they will become the poster children of schools abusing students for revenues, their players will be exhausted and have fewer practices, they will have a harder time graduating, they will become bottom dwellers in their conference, and eventually, recruits will start wondering — why should I go to UCLA/USC to be in the Big 10 and spend half my life travelling, when I could go to Ohio State, play in the Big 10, and not be at a disadvantage due to all the travel? Why be a midwest conference team 5 hours away from the midwest?

And last, who is to say the Pac 12 won’t be a good place to be even without the Los Angelenos? Even without those two, it’ll still be one of the top 5 conferences, just an even more distant fifth. The Pac 10 will still pull in more money than non Power 5 conferences, and it’ll be a nice little perch for sending teams into the expanded college football playoffs.

Even if you subtract LA County, the Pac 12 will still cover areas with an audience of 58 million viewers (instead of 68 million), including many of the nation’s highest income, highest wealth markets.

[Snorlax94]

Maybe I missed something, but it feels like this thread is really jumping the gun and assuming the end of the Pac 12 is coming. Is it understood the Pac 12 is “ending” if USC and UCLA leave?

First, is it 100% yet that they are leaving? Last I saw, Wilner thought there was still a 10-15% chance it wouldn’t go through (at least, for UCLA).

Second, I’d argue the tradeoffs just changed dramatically with the 12 team CFB playoff. Would it be better for USC to be part of the Pac 12 and make semi-regular appearances in the CFB or be in the Big 10 and never go? Which path sells more tickets and jerseys and pulls in more donations?

I would argue the UCLA and USC presidents/chancellors haven’t thought through the long-term implications of this plan. In the long run, going to the Big 10 will be disastrous. Instead of having 1-2 trips per year to Notre Dame/Central Florida/Vanderbilt, they will have 5-6 trips per year to Ohio State/Michigan. Their non-conference games may be against Stanford, USC/UCLA and Notre Dame. So they will be constantly jetlagged, exhausted, they will lose more than a week of practice due to travel, and they will have the most brutal schedules in the nation. Other Big 10 teams will fly out to sunny CA once a year, but the LA Traitorous Two will fly out to the Midwest 4-6 times a year. Sports with lots of games — like basketball and baseball — will be ruined by all the travel. Eventually, they will become the poster children of schools abusing students for revenues, their players will be exhausted and have fewer practices, they will have a harder time graduating, they will become bottom dwellers in their conference, and eventually, recruits will start wondering — why should I go to UCLA/USC to be in the Big 10 and spend half my life travelling, when I could go to Ohio State, play in the Big 10, and not be at a disadvantage due to all the travel? Why be a midwest conference team 5 hours away from the midwest?

And last, who is to say the Pac 12 won’t be a good place to be even without the Los Angelenos? Even without those two, it’ll still be one of the top 5 conferences, just an even more distant fifth. The Pac 10 will still pull in more money than non Power 5 conferences, and it’ll be a nice little perch for sending teams into the expanded college football playoffs.

Even if you subtract LA County, the Pac 12 will still cover areas with an audience of 58 million viewers (instead of 68 million), including many of the nation’s highest income, highest wealth markets.

[TrumpCard]

- Return the LSJUMB to Incomparable status - admit more musicians, and fewer people who do the truly stupid things that we've seen in the papers.  Free housing from the week before football season starts until the normal start of undergrad housing; multiple fully funded road trips as carrots.  Winning football team also helps with Band recruiting.  Revisit show format & do some serious introspection on what the audience actually wants to see/hear.  Band is the soundtrack to the stadium experience - must recover ASAP from the COVID and culture impacts, and do better.

This seems like a low ROI.  

--The band was gutted by suspensions and other discipline issues over the years.  Then the pandemic compounded the problem.  Then during the pandemic, the administration rightly came down hard on the band for failing to address sexual assault.  As a result of the last round of discipline, alumni are no longer allowed to participate in most band events, meaning that some of the most experienced musicians who know the songs well are not playing at games (except reunions).  That all took a toll, and the band will need some time to rebuild before it will be incomparable again.  There are other, more immediate, measures that would increase the number of butts in the seats at football games.  

--On admissions, are you talking about changing *university* admissions or just which students are eligible to join band?  If the former, that's pretty unrealistic.  If the latter, then requiring auditions to get into band would be a significant change in culture (since the band historically has no admissions requirements whatsoever), but maybe one that would improve the music.  The change in culture would be disappointing for me, but I haven't been a student or band member in ages, and maybe the current students would rather have a bad comprised only of legit musicians.  Again, this would not pay dividends for years.  You might see a decline in membership (from people who already participate, but wouldn't like the change) before you see gains from new members who otherwise wouldn't join.  

--Funding a month of housing would be an enormous expense.  Food too?  That's a non-trivial portion of the whole budget for the band.  If done, would students really come back early to play in 1-2 home games?  What else would they do for that month?  

--Funding extra road trip(s) sounds great, but how does that put butts in the chairs at home games?  Is the idea that an extra road trip is such a draw that more people would join band?  Maybe, but the ROI is low.

--I'm all for updating field shows to something people want to see.  By the way, will the update require unpaid Stanford students to do like 15 hours a week of field rehearsals.  If so, that ain't happening.

[TrumpCard]

- Return the LSJUMB to Incomparable status - admit more musicians, and fewer people who do the truly stupid things that we've seen in the papers.  Free housing from the week before football season starts until the normal start of undergrad housing; multiple fully funded road trips as carrots.  Winning football team also helps with Band recruiting.  Revisit show format & do some serious introspection on what the audience actually wants to see/hear.  Band is the soundtrack to the stadium experience - must recover ASAP from the COVID and culture impacts, and do better.

This seems like a low ROI.  

--The band was gutted by suspensions and other discipline issues over the years.  Then the pandemic compounded the problem.  Then during the pandemic, the administration rightly came down hard on the band for failing to address sexual assault.  As a result of the last round of discipline, alumni are no longer allowed to participate in most band events, meaning that some of the most experienced musicians who know the songs well are not playing at games (except reunions).  That all took a toll, and the band will need some time to rebuild before it will be incomparable again.  There are other, more immediate, measures that would increase the number of butts in the seats at football games.  

--On admissions, are you talking about changing *university* admissions or just which students are eligible to join band?  If the former, that's pretty unrealistic.  If the latter, then requiring auditions to get into band would be a significant change in culture (since the band historically has no admissions requirements whatsoever), but maybe one that would improve the music.  The change in culture would be disappointing for me, but I haven't been a student or band member in ages, and maybe the current students would rather have a bad comprised only of legit musicians.  Again, this would not pay dividends for years.  You might see a decline in membership (from people who already participate, but wouldn't like the change) before you see gains from new members who otherwise wouldn't join.  

--Funding a month of housing would be an enormous expense.  Food too?  That's a non-trivial portion of the whole budget for the band.  If done, would students really come back early to play in 1-2 home games?  What else would they do for that month?  

--Funding extra road trip(s) sounds great, but how does that put butts in the chairs at home games?  Is the idea that an extra road trip is such a draw that more people would join band?  Maybe, but the ROI is low.

--I'm all for updating field shows to something people want to see.  By the way, will the update require unpaid Stanford students to do like 15 hours a week of field rehearsals.  If so, that ain't happening.

[chrisk]

Maybe I missed something, but it feels like this thread is really jumping the gun and assuming the end of the Pac 12 is coming. Is it understood the Pac 12 is “ending” if USC and UCLA leave?

First, is it 100% yet that they are leaving? Last I saw, Wilner thought there was still a 10-15% chance it wouldn’t go through (at least, for UCLA).

Second, I’d argue the tradeoffs just changed dramatically with the 12 team CFB playoff. Would it be better for USC to be part of the Pac 12 and make semi-regular appearances in the CFB or be in the Big 10 and never go? Which path sells more tickets and jerseys and pulls in more donations?

I would argue the UCLA and USC presidents/chancellors haven’t thought through the long-term implications of this plan. In the long run, going to the Big 10 will be disastrous. Instead of having 1-2 trips per year to Notre Dame/Central Florida/Vanderbilt, they will have 5-6 trips per year to Ohio State/Michigan. Their non-conference games may be against Stanford, USC/UCLA and Notre Dame. So they will be constantly jetlagged, exhausted, they will lose more than a week of practice due to travel, and they will have the most brutal schedules in the nation. Other Big 10 teams will fly out to sunny CA once a year, but the LA Traitorous Two will fly out to the Midwest 4-6 times a year. Sports with lots of games — like basketball and baseball — will be ruined by all the travel. Eventually, they will become the poster children of schools abusing students for revenues, their players will be exhausted and have fewer practices, they will have a harder time graduating, they will become bottom dwellers in their conference, and eventually, recruits will start wondering — why should I go to UCLA/USC to be in the Big 10 and spend half my life travelling, when I could go to Ohio State, play in the Big 10, and not be at a disadvantage due to all the travel? Why be a midwest conference team 5 hours away from the midwest?

And last, who is to say the Pac 12 won’t be a good place to be even without the Los Angelenos? Even without those two, it’ll still be one of the top 5 conferences, just an even more distant fifth. The Pac 10 will still pull in more money than non Power 5 conferences, and it’ll be a nice little perch for sending teams into the expanded college football playoffs.

Even if you subtract LA County, the Pac 12 will still cover areas with an audience of 58 million viewers (instead of 68 million), including many of the nation’s highest income, highest wealth markets.

I agree. ,I think the 2024 Pac-10 will be stable for the next media cycle. But depending how things play out in that cycle, there could be a lot of changes following on, with some of the possibilities hard to imagine now. What will the NCAA look like with respect to football in 8-10 years?

[chrisk]

Maybe I missed something, but it feels like this thread is really jumping the gun and assuming the end of the Pac 12 is coming. Is it understood the Pac 12 is “ending” if USC and UCLA leave?

First, is it 100% yet that they are leaving? Last I saw, Wilner thought there was still a 10-15% chance it wouldn’t go through (at least, for UCLA).

Second, I’d argue the tradeoffs just changed dramatically with the 12 team CFB playoff. Would it be better for USC to be part of the Pac 12 and make semi-regular appearances in the CFB or be in the Big 10 and never go? Which path sells more tickets and jerseys and pulls in more donations?

I would argue the UCLA and USC presidents/chancellors haven’t thought through the long-term implications of this plan. In the long run, going to the Big 10 will be disastrous. Instead of having 1-2 trips per year to Notre Dame/Central Florida/Vanderbilt, they will have 5-6 trips per year to Ohio State/Michigan. Their non-conference games may be against Stanford, USC/UCLA and Notre Dame. So they will be constantly jetlagged, exhausted, they will lose more than a week of practice due to travel, and they will have the most brutal schedules in the nation. Other Big 10 teams will fly out to sunny CA once a year, but the LA Traitorous Two will fly out to the Midwest 4-6 times a year. Sports with lots of games — like basketball and baseball — will be ruined by all the travel. Eventually, they will become the poster children of schools abusing students for revenues, their players will be exhausted and have fewer practices, they will have a harder time graduating, they will become bottom dwellers in their conference, and eventually, recruits will start wondering — why should I go to UCLA/USC to be in the Big 10 and spend half my life travelling, when I could go to Ohio State, play in the Big 10, and not be at a disadvantage due to all the travel? Why be a midwest conference team 5 hours away from the midwest?

And last, who is to say the Pac 12 won’t be a good place to be even without the Los Angelenos? Even without those two, it’ll still be one of the top 5 conferences, just an even more distant fifth. The Pac 10 will still pull in more money than non Power 5 conferences, and it’ll be a nice little perch for sending teams into the expanded college football playoffs.

Even if you subtract LA County, the Pac 12 will still cover areas with an audience of 58 million viewers (instead of 68 million), including many of the nation’s highest income, highest wealth markets.

I agree. ,I think the 2024 Pac-10 will be stable for the next media cycle. But depending how things play out in that cycle, there could be a lot of changes following on, with some of the possibilities hard to imagine now. What will the NCAA look like with respect to football in 8-10 years?

[CowboyIndian]

  What will the NCAA look like with respect to football in 8-10 years?

Let's see about 8-10 months first.

[CowboyIndian]

  What will the NCAA look like with respect to football in 8-10 years?

Let's see about 8-10 months first.

[CTcard]

I would argue the UCLA and USC presidents/chancellors haven’t thought through the long-term implications of this plan. In the long run, going to the Big 10 will be disastrous. Instead of having 1-2 trips per year to Notre Dame/Central Florida/Vanderbilt, they will have 5-6 trips per year to Ohio State/Michigan. Their non-conference games may be against Stanford, USC/UCLA and Notre Dame. 

Haven't checked UCLA, but SC hasn't been playing Central Florida, Vandy etc (that's Stanford). 
In the past 10 years, SC has played one non-und game east of the Mississippi. A loss to Boston College in 2014. 
They did play two games in Texas (got crushed by Bama in 2016, UT in 2018). They never play more than one "distant" game per year, often zero. 

It looks like the Big Ten has gone to a 9 game conference schedule now, so presumably SC/UCLA would typically have 4 eastern trips per year (in years they would have 5 road games, they'll be the "road" team for SC-UCLA). 

My guess is SC's non-conference schedule will be und, an FCS team, and a Group of Five team - all home games outside of odd years in south bend. 

 they will have the most brutal schedules in the nation. 

Perhaps by travel, not by quality of opponent. The Big Ten is so large, that the chance of playing multiple of their quality teams in a year is pretty small. A schedule loaded with Rutgers, Indiana, and Illinois is not the most daunting in college football. 

  
Sports with lots of games — like basketball and baseball — will be ruined by all the travel.

It seems pretty clear that sports outside of football weren't really considered in the move. Eventually they will come up with some king of weird distorted schedule to minimize travel. For a few sports that will be fine-ish, others more of a mess. But no one with power will care because ... football. 

And last, who is to say the Pac 12 won’t be a good place to be even without the Los Angelenos? Even without those two, it’ll still be one of the top 5 conferences, just an even more distant fifth. 

 

If the Pac 10 can hold together, it could be as high as the third top football conference - in both level of play and revenue. 
The Big 12 without Texas and Oklahoma is considerably less than the Pac 10 minus SC/UCLA. 
For the ACC, it depends upon the future of Florida State and Clemson (though Clemson's prospects minus Sweeney aren't entirely clear). Teams like Wake, Duke, BC aren't lining up the victories or fans.

[CTcard]

I would argue the UCLA and USC presidents/chancellors haven’t thought through the long-term implications of this plan. In the long run, going to the Big 10 will be disastrous. Instead of having 1-2 trips per year to Notre Dame/Central Florida/Vanderbilt, they will have 5-6 trips per year to Ohio State/Michigan. Their non-conference games may be against Stanford, USC/UCLA and Notre Dame. 

Haven't checked UCLA, but SC hasn't been playing Central Florida, Vandy etc (that's Stanford). 
In the past 10 years, SC has played one non-und game east of the Mississippi. A loss to Boston College in 2014. 
They did play two games in Texas (got crushed by Bama in 2016, UT in 2018). They never play more than one "distant" game per year, often zero. 

It looks like the Big Ten has gone to a 9 game conference schedule now, so presumably SC/UCLA would typically have 4 eastern trips per year (in years they would have 5 road games, they'll be the "road" team for SC-UCLA). 

My guess is SC's non-conference schedule will be und, an FCS team, and a Group of Five team - all home games outside of odd years in south bend. 

 they will have the most brutal schedules in the nation. 

Perhaps by travel, not by quality of opponent. The Big Ten is so large, that the chance of playing multiple of their quality teams in a year is pretty small. A schedule loaded with Rutgers, Indiana, and Illinois is not the most daunting in college football. 

  
Sports with lots of games — like basketball and baseball — will be ruined by all the travel.

It seems pretty clear that sports outside of football weren't really considered in the move. Eventually they will come up with some king of weird distorted schedule to minimize travel. For a few sports that will be fine-ish, others more of a mess. But no one with power will care because ... football. 

And last, who is to say the Pac 12 won’t be a good place to be even without the Los Angelenos? Even without those two, it’ll still be one of the top 5 conferences, just an even more distant fifth. 

 

If the Pac 10 can hold together, it could be as high as the third top football conference - in both level of play and revenue. 
The Big 12 without Texas and Oklahoma is considerably less than the Pac 10 minus SC/UCLA. 
For the ACC, it depends upon the future of Florida State and Clemson (though Clemson's prospects minus Sweeney aren't entirely clear). Teams like Wake, Duke, BC aren't lining up the victories or fans.

[Spiny_Norman]

I heard Howard Wolf, the Stanford VP for Alumni Affairs, give a report yesterday on current campus issues including sports. Based on what Howard said, I think that Stanford's priority right now is working with the remain P10 schools to preserve the conference (i.e., keep the remaining 10 schools together) and make it viable from a football perspective.
 
Assuming that can be done, Stanford would then have to decide how many sports they could support given the financial model for football (which substantially supports all other sports). I would expect sports to be cut. Howard did not say that at all. It's my interpretation of this scenario.

A few other nuggets. He said that Stanford will NOT make Alston payments to its athletes. Based on this position, it would really complicate matters if the athletes wanted to unionize. Stanford is following closely the NLRB case investigating unfair labor practices against the NCAA office, the Pac-12 Conference and USC and UCLA.

And we should not expect a commitment of current endowment money to help balance the AD budget on a regular basis when revenue comes up short. If donors want to make up the difference with incremental additional $, the total amount raised would have to be 20x the amount needed each year to allow for earnings on the endowment to be used without eating into the principal. In other words, if donors want to make up a $20M shortfall to support sports at the margin, the total raised would need to be at least $400M.

JJJ - I saw you there as well. Did you hear anything different or additional?

[Spiny_Norman]

I heard Howard Wolf, the Stanford VP for Alumni Affairs, give a report yesterday on current campus issues including sports. Based on what Howard said, I think that Stanford's priority right now is working with the remain P10 schools to preserve the conference (i.e., keep the remaining 10 schools together) and make it viable from a football perspective.
 
Assuming that can be done, Stanford would then have to decide how many sports they could support given the financial model for football (which substantially supports all other sports). I would expect sports to be cut. Howard did not say that at all. It's my interpretation of this scenario.

A few other nuggets. He said that Stanford will NOT make Alston payments to its athletes. Based on this position, it would really complicate matters if the athletes wanted to unionize. Stanford is following closely the NLRB case investigating unfair labor practices against the NCAA office, the Pac-12 Conference and USC and UCLA.

And we should not expect a commitment of current endowment money to help balance the AD budget on a regular basis when revenue comes up short. If donors want to make up the difference with incremental additional $, the total amount raised would have to be 20x the amount needed each year to allow for earnings on the endowment to be used without eating into the principal. In other words, if donors want to make up a $20M shortfall to support sports at the margin, the total raised would need to be at least $400M.

JJJ - I saw you there as well. Did you hear anything different or additional?

[Alvin]

Maybe I missed something, but it feels like this thread is really jumping the gun and assuming the end of the Pac 12 is coming. Is it understood the Pac 12 is “ending” if USC and UCLA leave?

First, is it 100% yet that they are leaving? Last I saw, Wilner thought there was still a 10-15% chance it wouldn’t go through (at least, for UCLA).

What makes you think only USC and UCLA are leaving? Oregon and Washington could be next...and the dominos fall.

[Alvin]

Maybe I missed something, but it feels like this thread is really jumping the gun and assuming the end of the Pac 12 is coming. Is it understood the Pac 12 is “ending” if USC and UCLA leave?

First, is it 100% yet that they are leaving? Last I saw, Wilner thought there was still a 10-15% chance it wouldn’t go through (at least, for UCLA).

What makes you think only USC and UCLA are leaving? Oregon and Washington could be next...and the dominos fall.

[CTcard]

What makes you think only USC and UCLA are leaving? Oregon and Washington could be next...and the dominos fall.

A lot of things could be next. What will be next is unclear.

[CTcard]

What makes you think only USC and UCLA are leaving? Oregon and Washington could be next...and the dominos fall.

A lot of things could be next. What will be next is unclear.