[Giants]

Say we schedule SC or UCLA (or Michigan or Northwestern). Do we get an even split of whatever ESPN or Fox or CBS pays for that game?

My understanding…..

The home team pays non-conference visitors a flat fee and keeps 100% of the gate receipts.  As for TV money in non-conference matchups, the road team gets nothing (other than the aforementioned negotiated flat fee).

I would imagine that if Stanford went independent, they would have to negotiate a payout for each road game.  SC might offer a lot and Northwestern not so much.  It would be up to the AD to decide where to play the road games based on what he could squeeze from the opponent.

[Giants]

Say we schedule SC or UCLA (or Michigan or Northwestern). Do we get an even split of whatever ESPN or Fox or CBS pays for that game?

My understanding…..

The home team pays non-conference visitors a flat fee and keeps 100% of the gate receipts.  As for TV money in non-conference matchups, the road team gets nothing (other than the aforementioned negotiated flat fee).

I would imagine that if Stanford went independent, they would have to negotiate a payout for each road game.  SC might offer a lot and Northwestern not so much.  It would be up to the AD to decide where to play the road games based on what he could squeeze from the opponent.

[Canalejas]

And an independent Stanford would be able to sell the TV rights to its home games.  So the value would depend on what schools would be willing to come to the Farm (and for how much.)

[Canalejas]

And an independent Stanford would be able to sell the TV rights to its home games.  So the value would depend on what schools would be willing to come to the Farm (and for how much.)

[2006alum]

As usual, Pat Forde is spot on:

It would be massively damaging to college athletics to have no prominent West Coast conference. If an entire region of the country sells out its athletes and fans for a long-distance partnership that in all likelihood would produce fewer victories, greater academic hardship, less tradition and harder travel—all in the name of revenue—the entire enterprise is diminished. More revenue leads to bigger staffs and buildings, makes rich coaches richer, and gives administrators a cushion for financial mismanagement in making hires and rewarding contracts. Those things do nothing for the average fan who wants to win, enjoy local rivalries and maybe make an easy road trip to an away game. They’ve been conned into rooting for revenue, believing that simply being “big time” is some kind of intrinsic reward.

Cash-Grabbing Power Players Are Sending College Sports Into a Soulless Spiral

[2006alum]

As usual, Pat Forde is spot on:

It would be massively damaging to college athletics to have no prominent West Coast conference. If an entire region of the country sells out its athletes and fans for a long-distance partnership that in all likelihood would produce fewer victories, greater academic hardship, less tradition and harder travel—all in the name of revenue—the entire enterprise is diminished. More revenue leads to bigger staffs and buildings, makes rich coaches richer, and gives administrators a cushion for financial mismanagement in making hires and rewarding contracts. Those things do nothing for the average fan who wants to win, enjoy local rivalries and maybe make an easy road trip to an away game. They’ve been conned into rooting for revenue, believing that simply being “big time” is some kind of intrinsic reward.

Cash-Grabbing Power Players Are Sending College Sports Into a Soulless Spiral

[Canalejas]

 The Big Ten's discussions are centered on Washington and Oregon, sources told ESPN.

...

  Although there's some presidential interest in adding Cal and Stanford, those potential additions were met with chilly responses last year when the Big Ten pondered adding more teams, in part because of their lack of television resonance. Stanford's addition to the Big Ten has long been paired to a potential Notre Dame addition, which doesn't appear imminent at this point. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...nstability

I think it is time to gameplan the doomsday scenarios. Stanford as a football independent and member of the Big Sky or Big West?

In that type of emergency situation, I'd prefer the Big West.  That's in large part because of where its members are located. And because I have a soft spot for Cal's UC siblings (don't crucify me for that one.)

  

Stanford (and presumably Cal) would join a conference with ten other CA schools plus Hawai'i.  A strange wrinkle is that those schools (evenly split between UCs and CSUs) had friction the last time they expanded.  The CSU group would not approve the addition of UC San Diego until they could find a CSU school to partner with, in order to keep the numbers even between the two systems within the conference.  They eventually settled on adding CSU Bakersfield.  If Cal applies for membership alongside us, would the Big West CSUs want to first convince Sacramento State to join at the same time?  

Anyway, here's the map for the Big Sky: 



Despite the three location pins in CA, only Sacramento State is a full member of the conference.  The other two are football-only members UC Davis and Cal Poly SLO.

[Canalejas]

 The Big Ten's discussions are centered on Washington and Oregon, sources told ESPN.

...

  Although there's some presidential interest in adding Cal and Stanford, those potential additions were met with chilly responses last year when the Big Ten pondered adding more teams, in part because of their lack of television resonance. Stanford's addition to the Big Ten has long been paired to a potential Notre Dame addition, which doesn't appear imminent at this point. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...nstability

I think it is time to gameplan the doomsday scenarios. Stanford as a football independent and member of the Big Sky or Big West?

In that type of emergency situation, I'd prefer the Big West.  That's in large part because of where its members are located. And because I have a soft spot for Cal's UC siblings (don't crucify me for that one.)

  

Stanford (and presumably Cal) would join a conference with ten other CA schools plus Hawai'i.  A strange wrinkle is that those schools (evenly split between UCs and CSUs) had friction the last time they expanded.  The CSU group would not approve the addition of UC San Diego until they could find a CSU school to partner with, in order to keep the numbers even between the two systems within the conference.  They eventually settled on adding CSU Bakersfield.  If Cal applies for membership alongside us, would the Big West CSUs want to first convince Sacramento State to join at the same time?  

Anyway, here's the map for the Big Sky: 



Despite the three location pins in CA, only Sacramento State is a full member of the conference.  The other two are football-only members UC Davis and Cal Poly SLO.

[M T]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

[M T]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

[Mick]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

And then either D3 athletics or none at all.

University of Chicago, here we come...Palo Alto = Hyde Park.

[Mick]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

And then either D3 athletics or none at all.

University of Chicago, here we come...Palo Alto = Hyde Park.

[chrisk]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

And then either D3 athletics or none at all.

University of Chicago, here we come...Palo Alto = Hyde Park.

Chicago is a power in the Midwest Conference. It racked up 7 lopsided wins on it way to a 4th place finish.
This year it hosts Claremont-Mudd-Scripps in its non-conference opener.

[chrisk]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

And then either D3 athletics or none at all.

University of Chicago, here we come...Palo Alto = Hyde Park.

Chicago is a power in the Midwest Conference. It racked up 7 lopsided wins on it way to a 4th place finish.
This year it hosts Claremont-Mudd-Scripps in its non-conference opener.

[OCcardinal]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

And then either D3 athletics or none at all.

University of Chicago, here we come...Palo Alto = Hyde Park.

It's interesting to play that hypothetical out. I'm not advocating for cutting football, but if that were to happen I think Georgetown University would be a better comparison than Chicago. Georgetown doesn't have FBS level football and yet manages to fund Division I sports. (Their Championship Subdivision team only covers its own expenses.)  Similarly, UConn didn't have a division 1-A football team until 2002 and had had lots of Div I success (e.g., their men's and women's basketball teams were winning NCAA championships before that). The question would be how many sports Stanford would try to continue (and what its appetite would be to raise the funds needed to endow them).  I think I saw somewhere that Stanford football netted $13M last year.  That amount would seem to be replaceable (though that figure is surely low as there is probably some overhead that is being paid out of the football budget that would still need to be paid even if there were no football team).  The other interesting thing is that there would be a new imbalance between men's and women's sports.  Stanford could either cut some women's sports or add some men's sports without violating Title IX.

[OCcardinal]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

And then either D3 athletics or none at all.

University of Chicago, here we come...Palo Alto = Hyde Park.

It's interesting to play that hypothetical out. I'm not advocating for cutting football, but if that were to happen I think Georgetown University would be a better comparison than Chicago. Georgetown doesn't have FBS level football and yet manages to fund Division I sports. (Their Championship Subdivision team only covers its own expenses.)  Similarly, UConn didn't have a division 1-A football team until 2002 and had had lots of Div I success (e.g., their men's and women's basketball teams were winning NCAA championships before that). The question would be how many sports Stanford would try to continue (and what its appetite would be to raise the funds needed to endow them).  I think I saw somewhere that Stanford football netted $13M last year.  That amount would seem to be replaceable (though that figure is surely low as there is probably some overhead that is being paid out of the football budget that would still need to be paid even if there were no football team).  The other interesting thing is that there would be a new imbalance between men's and women's sports.  Stanford could either cut some women's sports or add some men's sports without violating Title IX.

[chrisk]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

And then either D3 athletics or none at all.

University of Chicago, here we come...Palo Alto = Hyde Park.

Chicago is a power in the Midwest Conference. It racked up 7 lopsided wins on it way to a 4th place finish.
This year it hosts Claremont-Mudd-Scripps in its non-conference opener.

[chrisk]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

And then either D3 athletics or none at all.

University of Chicago, here we come...Palo Alto = Hyde Park.

Chicago is a power in the Midwest Conference. It racked up 7 lopsided wins on it way to a 4th place finish.
This year it hosts Claremont-Mudd-Scripps in its non-conference opener.

[OutsiderFan]

This is bylined 17 hours ago, so it might be outdated already, but here it is anyway:
https://www.on3.com/news/dan-wetzel-big-...nted-rate/

Dan Wetzel sez:

Factors like geography, local demography and, certainly, academic prowess are factoring in to these decisions that, in the end, reach further than athletics. It’s why the Big Ten Conference would likely prefer to scoop up Stanford and Cal — along with Oregon and Washington — as opposed to Florida State and Clemson.

[OutsiderFan]

This is bylined 17 hours ago, so it might be outdated already, but here it is anyway:
https://www.on3.com/news/dan-wetzel-big-...nted-rate/

Dan Wetzel sez:

Factors like geography, local demography and, certainly, academic prowess are factoring in to these decisions that, in the end, reach further than athletics. It’s why the Big Ten Conference would likely prefer to scoop up Stanford and Cal — along with Oregon and Washington — as opposed to Florida State and Clemson.

[Mick]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

And then either D3 athletics or none at all.

University of Chicago, here we come...Palo Alto = Hyde Park.

It's interesting to play that hypothetical out. I'm not advocating for cutting football, but if that were to happen I think Georgetown University would be a better comparison than Chicago. Georgetown doesn't have FBS level football and yet manages to fund Division I sports. (Their Championship Subdivision team only covers its own expenses.)  Similarly, UConn didn't have a division 1-A football team until 2002 and had had lots of Div I success (e.g., their men's and women's basketball teams were winning NCAA championships before that). The question would be how many sports Stanford would try to continue (and what its appetite would be to raise the funds needed to endow them).  I think I saw somewhere that Stanford football netted $13M last year.  That amount would seem to be replaceable (though that figure is surely low as there is probably some overhead that is being paid out of the football budget that would still need to be paid even if there were no football team).  The other interesting thing is that there would be a new imbalance between men's and women's sports.  Stanford could either cut some women's sports or add some men's sports without violating Title IX.

Sorry, I wasn't thinking about the Chicago/Georgetown comparison on a sporting basis, I was thinking about it from a Top Five versus a Top 25 basis.

Stanford's the only Top Nine university with high level football. The Ivies, MIT, Chicago, and CalTech don't have it. It's part of Stanford's secret sauce. Without D1 football (and consequently, other sports), part of what's special about Stanford goes away. Certainly not the most important part, but AN important part.

At the next level down -- the G'Town level, the Top 25 level, you have seven D1 football schools. Duke (T#10), Northwestern (T#10), Vandy (#13), Rice (#15), Notre Dame (#18), Berkeley (T#20), UCLA (T#20). Not quite as special.

[Mick]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

And then either D3 athletics or none at all.

University of Chicago, here we come...Palo Alto = Hyde Park.

It's interesting to play that hypothetical out. I'm not advocating for cutting football, but if that were to happen I think Georgetown University would be a better comparison than Chicago. Georgetown doesn't have FBS level football and yet manages to fund Division I sports. (Their Championship Subdivision team only covers its own expenses.)  Similarly, UConn didn't have a division 1-A football team until 2002 and had had lots of Div I success (e.g., their men's and women's basketball teams were winning NCAA championships before that). The question would be how many sports Stanford would try to continue (and what its appetite would be to raise the funds needed to endow them).  I think I saw somewhere that Stanford football netted $13M last year.  That amount would seem to be replaceable (though that figure is surely low as there is probably some overhead that is being paid out of the football budget that would still need to be paid even if there were no football team).  The other interesting thing is that there would be a new imbalance between men's and women's sports.  Stanford could either cut some women's sports or add some men's sports without violating Title IX.

Sorry, I wasn't thinking about the Chicago/Georgetown comparison on a sporting basis, I was thinking about it from a Top Five versus a Top 25 basis.

Stanford's the only Top Nine university with high level football. The Ivies, MIT, Chicago, and CalTech don't have it. It's part of Stanford's secret sauce. Without D1 football (and consequently, other sports), part of what's special about Stanford goes away. Certainly not the most important part, but AN important part.

At the next level down -- the G'Town level, the Top 25 level, you have seven D1 football schools. Duke (T#10), Northwestern (T#10), Vandy (#13), Rice (#15), Notre Dame (#18), Berkeley (T#20), UCLA (T#20). Not quite as special.

[OutsiderFan]

Reading the stuff being reported various places on this topic today makes me think "how in the hell do we make decisions like this?"

Universities are generally the slowest moving institutions there are, yet when it comes to TV dollars, they move faster than an ant on a hot rock.

Today I'm reading how the Big Ten wants the other four original Pac members so it can have a Friday Night/Saturday Night Football offering, and that ESPN is interested in that. The problem is ESPN can't act on the Big Ten's timeline which is reportedly hours, not the days or weeks ESPN would need to put it together.

Washington's board of trustees is having an emergency meeting tonight.

It's like a game of musical chairs has broken out all of a sudden and major universities are stooping to grovel at the trough of media companies so they get a chair. These are institutions that typically take years to make decisions, and they are all of a sudden forced to act with hardly any planning or study at all on the impact to their campus, faculty, students, and alumni.

Just plain idiotic.

[OutsiderFan]

Reading the stuff being reported various places on this topic today makes me think "how in the hell do we make decisions like this?"

Universities are generally the slowest moving institutions there are, yet when it comes to TV dollars, they move faster than an ant on a hot rock.

Today I'm reading how the Big Ten wants the other four original Pac members so it can have a Friday Night/Saturday Night Football offering, and that ESPN is interested in that. The problem is ESPN can't act on the Big Ten's timeline which is reportedly hours, not the days or weeks ESPN would need to put it together.

Washington's board of trustees is having an emergency meeting tonight.

It's like a game of musical chairs has broken out all of a sudden and major universities are stooping to grovel at the trough of media companies so they get a chair. These are institutions that typically take years to make decisions, and they are all of a sudden forced to act with hardly any planning or study at all on the impact to their campus, faculty, students, and alumni.

Just plain idiotic.

[Canalejas]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

And then either D3 athletics or none at all.

University of Chicago, here we come...Palo Alto = Hyde Park.

D3 in California is just the SCIAC and UC Santa Cruz by itself in NorCal.  

[Canalejas]

Or maybe it is time to own up to CTE and start down the road of academics without football.

And then either D3 athletics or none at all.

University of Chicago, here we come...Palo Alto = Hyde Park.

D3 in California is just the SCIAC and UC Santa Cruz by itself in NorCal.  

[needle]

[tweet] https://twitter.com/DanWetzel/status/168...8770772992 [/tweet]

[needle]

[tweet] https://twitter.com/DanWetzel/status/168...8770772992 [/tweet]

[OutsiderFan]

And two weeks ago the Big Ten was not interested in further expansion either. You can't trust anything these jackals say to stand longer than the second they say it. They aren't interested in doing something they haven't done yet, until they decide to do it.

This is like the comment from a Big Ten source that got beat up like a piñata all across the internet yesterday: We don't want to be responsible for killing the Pac-12.

[OutsiderFan]

And two weeks ago the Big Ten was not interested in further expansion either. You can't trust anything these jackals say to stand longer than the second they say it. They aren't interested in doing something they haven't done yet, until they decide to do it.

This is like the comment from a Big Ten source that got beat up like a piñata all across the internet yesterday: We don't want to be responsible for killing the Pac-12.

[needle]

There are probably a few Stanford fans hoping for Ore. and UW to take what appears to be a B1G offer on the grounds that their doing so would speed up the timeline for Stanford (and probably Cal) to be invited to the B1G (and the riches that await).

These fans have a confidence that I lack.

[needle]

There are probably a few Stanford fans hoping for Ore. and UW to take what appears to be a B1G offer on the grounds that their doing so would speed up the timeline for Stanford (and probably Cal) to be invited to the B1G (and the riches that await).

These fans have a confidence that I lack.

[OCcardinal]

Among various (mostly bad) alternatives, I like 6 West Coast teams in the Big 10.  The Big 10 only plays 9 intraconference games per season.  Presumably those West Coast teams would all play each other every year.  So that would mean only two away games at the far-away Big 10 sites.  Travel would be so much better for the student athletes (and fans).  And of course that's good for athletes in other sports too.  Plus you maintain all the historical connections between those 6 schools.  But I read that USC doesn't want other West Coast schools in the Big 10.  (They don't have a vote, but who knows what influence that might have.)  I haven't heard why USC opposes adding other West Coast schools. Could be recruiting/self-doubt about their own competitiveness.

[OCcardinal]

Among various (mostly bad) alternatives, I like 6 West Coast teams in the Big 10.  The Big 10 only plays 9 intraconference games per season.  Presumably those West Coast teams would all play each other every year.  So that would mean only two away games at the far-away Big 10 sites.  Travel would be so much better for the student athletes (and fans).  And of course that's good for athletes in other sports too.  Plus you maintain all the historical connections between those 6 schools.  But I read that USC doesn't want other West Coast schools in the Big 10.  (They don't have a vote, but who knows what influence that might have.)  I haven't heard why USC opposes adding other West Coast schools. Could be recruiting/self-doubt about their own competitiveness.

[Canalejas]

[tweet] https://twitter.com/DanWetzel/status/168...8770772992 [/tweet]

Aww, nuts.  Well, it was nice to think that we had more options yesterday. Back to doomscrolling.

[Canalejas]

[tweet] https://twitter.com/DanWetzel/status/168...8770772992 [/tweet]

Aww, nuts.  Well, it was nice to think that we had more options yesterday. Back to doomscrolling.

[Spiny_Norman]

As you read these stories and tweets and rumors about possible conference moves, keep asking the question, "Who's going to pay for it?" No conference is in a favorable negotiating position right now to get more broadcasting rights revenue as providers like ESPN and FOX deal with declining revenue from cord-cutters. The P12 is learning this as they try to negotiate their new media rights contract.

FSU and Clemson to the SEC? That would mean that ESPN (which owns SEC broadcast rights) would owe approx $30M MORE to FSU and Clemson than those schools get right now from ESPN (which also owns ACC broadcast rights). Why would ESPN be willing to do that? They won't get $30M more value from Clemson and FSU than they do now with the schools in the ACC.

Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington to the B10? Even at a discount, someone has to pay for it.

I would pay more attention to articles that include a discussion of how the business side of these conference moves might work.

[Spiny_Norman]

As you read these stories and tweets and rumors about possible conference moves, keep asking the question, "Who's going to pay for it?" No conference is in a favorable negotiating position right now to get more broadcasting rights revenue as providers like ESPN and FOX deal with declining revenue from cord-cutters. The P12 is learning this as they try to negotiate their new media rights contract.

FSU and Clemson to the SEC? That would mean that ESPN (which owns SEC broadcast rights) would owe approx $30M MORE to FSU and Clemson than those schools get right now from ESPN (which also owns ACC broadcast rights). Why would ESPN be willing to do that? They won't get $30M more value from Clemson and FSU than they do now with the schools in the ACC.

Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington to the B10? Even at a discount, someone has to pay for it.

I would pay more attention to articles that include a discussion of how the business side of these conference moves might work.

[Beeg_Dawg]

https://www.si.com/college/2023/08/02/bi...l-stanford

Current info.  Gut feel locally is Oregon won't be allowed to move unless OSU is part of the package.  Same thing with UW and WSU.  Legislation was introduced in Olympia last year requiring UW and WSU be in the same conference.  https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillN...tive=False

My guess is the Big 10 will do a four school deal to land the Ducks and Huskies with OSU and WSU going along for the ride.  Cal and Stanford will be all that is left of the PAC with no viable options.

[Beeg_Dawg]

https://www.si.com/college/2023/08/02/bi...l-stanford

Current info.  Gut feel locally is Oregon won't be allowed to move unless OSU is part of the package.  Same thing with UW and WSU.  Legislation was introduced in Olympia last year requiring UW and WSU be in the same conference.  https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillN...tive=False

My guess is the Big 10 will do a four school deal to land the Ducks and Huskies with OSU and WSU going along for the ride.  Cal and Stanford will be all that is left of the PAC with no viable options.