[Sam Leopold]

My own take is that the PAC 12 and especially Stanford overreaction to the pandemic hurt the program badly. Again, not to argue but is your point that Stanford did not clamp down on athletic activity enough during the pandemic? And further than this under reaction hurt the athletic program and or the School?

There was another sequence of events that played out during the pandemic that proved to be foreshadowing.  The Big Ten initially pulled out of playing the 2020 football season, and then the Pac-12 followed suit within a week.  A little later, the Big Ten decided they would play football after all, and indeed, in less than a week, the Pac-12 followed suit.

That sent a message -- visible to the entire nation -- that the Pac-12 was the Big Ten's submissive lapdog, whether that was the truth of the matter or not.  Keep in mind that before the onset of the pandemic, the status of the Pac-12 among the five power conferences was already quite dodgy.  Looking back, the Big Ten proceeding to methodically extract the Pac-12's plum programs out of its control -- and the Big XII clawing several others away for good measure -- took that state of affairs to its perverse, grim, (il)logical extreme.

[Sam Leopold]

My own take is that the PAC 12 and especially Stanford overreaction to the pandemic hurt the program badly. Again, not to argue but is your point that Stanford did not clamp down on athletic activity enough during the pandemic? And further than this under reaction hurt the athletic program and or the School?

There was another sequence of events that played out during the pandemic that proved to be foreshadowing.  The Big Ten initially pulled out of playing the 2020 football season, and then the Pac-12 followed suit within a week.  A little later, the Big Ten decided they would play football after all, and indeed, in less than a week, the Pac-12 followed suit.

That sent a message -- visible to the entire nation -- that the Pac-12 was the Big Ten's submissive lapdog, whether that was the truth of the matter or not.  Keep in mind that before the onset of the pandemic, the status of the Pac-12 among the five power conferences was already quite dodgy.  Looking back, the Big Ten proceeding to methodically extract the Pac-12's plum programs out of its control -- and the Big XII clawing several others away for good measure -- took that state of affairs to its perverse, grim, (il)logical extreme.

[Maple Leaf]

This comment about the need for the Big 10 to expand makes sense from $$$ standpoint.  Not that I am in favor of Stanford (or Cal) joining the Big 10, this may give Stanford some leverage in addition to the academic side of things.  

The B1G has 3 prime TV windows to fill. At 16 teams, there are only 8 games. I can’t imagine making 3 compelling matchups for 13-15 weeks. I think they get bigger. The NFL has 4 prime windows and 32 teams and they have difficulty filling them. This is also being done for the future because if they don’t deliver, there won’t be 3 networks bidding on their packages.

[Maple Leaf]

This comment about the need for the Big 10 to expand makes sense from $$$ standpoint.  Not that I am in favor of Stanford (or Cal) joining the Big 10, this may give Stanford some leverage in addition to the academic side of things.  

The B1G has 3 prime TV windows to fill. At 16 teams, there are only 8 games. I can’t imagine making 3 compelling matchups for 13-15 weeks. I think they get bigger. The NFL has 4 prime windows and 32 teams and they have difficulty filling them. This is also being done for the future because if they don’t deliver, there won’t be 3 networks bidding on their packages.

[grendalor]

I think college football is on the path to implosion.  A weak sauce version of the NFL. How is that sustainable?

It's sustainable because it makes a ton of money.  And the NFL has no minor league, and won't make one because there is too much real money to be lost in doing so.  College football, as a thing, isn't going anywhere.  

For Stanford, though, remaining a part of that will be very challenging.  Joining the B1G likely would require a buy-in, which seems unlikely.  Floating down to mid-major seems more likely, and perhaps more appropriate, given how college football is changing, as hard as that is for many of us to accept.

[grendalor]

I think college football is on the path to implosion.  A weak sauce version of the NFL. How is that sustainable?

It's sustainable because it makes a ton of money.  And the NFL has no minor league, and won't make one because there is too much real money to be lost in doing so.  College football, as a thing, isn't going anywhere.  

For Stanford, though, remaining a part of that will be very challenging.  Joining the B1G likely would require a buy-in, which seems unlikely.  Floating down to mid-major seems more likely, and perhaps more appropriate, given how college football is changing, as hard as that is for many of us to accept.

[Vandelay]

Here's an interesting article written by Pat Forde last summer.  Stanford was ranked as the 17th most desirable school in the P5 (in a hypothetical world of conference realignment).  Ahead of both UCLA and Oregon.  I happen to agree with this ranking and am very surprised that both the Big Ten and ACC have not jumped on the opportunity to add Stanford.

https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/14/po...ig-ten-acc

Stanford's challenge (and one which Forde failed to anticipate in his article) is that conferences are evaluating schools in pairs rather than individually.

So USC/UCLA > UW/UO > Stanford/Cal

Perhaps Stanford can find way to pair with a more attractive school (i.e. Notre Dame) rather than Cal?

[Vandelay]

Here's an interesting article written by Pat Forde last summer.  Stanford was ranked as the 17th most desirable school in the P5 (in a hypothetical world of conference realignment).  Ahead of both UCLA and Oregon.  I happen to agree with this ranking and am very surprised that both the Big Ten and ACC have not jumped on the opportunity to add Stanford.

https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/14/po...ig-ten-acc

Stanford's challenge (and one which Forde failed to anticipate in his article) is that conferences are evaluating schools in pairs rather than individually.

So USC/UCLA > UW/UO > Stanford/Cal

Perhaps Stanford can find way to pair with a more attractive school (i.e. Notre Dame) rather than Cal?

[Giants]

Here's an interesting article written by Pat Forde last summer.  Stanford was ranked as the 17th most desirable school in the P5 (in a hypothetical world of conference realignment).  Ahead of both UCLA and Oregon.  I happen to agree with this ranking and am very surprised that both the Big Ten and ACC have not jumped on the opportunity to add Stanford.

https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/14/po...ig-ten-acc

Stanford's challenge (and one which Forde failed to anticipate in his article) is that conferences are evaluating schools in pairs rather than individually.

So USC/UCLA > UW/UO > Stanford/Cal

Perhaps Stanford can find way to pair with a more attractive school (i.e. Notre Dame) rather than Cal?

To this point, neither school has been considered because they bring no revenue producing athletic value.  The sole reason they are under review is because of their academic prowess.  If they were to be voted in to the ACC, their primary function would be to raise the overall academic standing of the conference.

[Giants]

Here's an interesting article written by Pat Forde last summer.  Stanford was ranked as the 17th most desirable school in the P5 (in a hypothetical world of conference realignment).  Ahead of both UCLA and Oregon.  I happen to agree with this ranking and am very surprised that both the Big Ten and ACC have not jumped on the opportunity to add Stanford.

https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/14/po...ig-ten-acc

Stanford's challenge (and one which Forde failed to anticipate in his article) is that conferences are evaluating schools in pairs rather than individually.

So USC/UCLA > UW/UO > Stanford/Cal

Perhaps Stanford can find way to pair with a more attractive school (i.e. Notre Dame) rather than Cal?

To this point, neither school has been considered because they bring no revenue producing athletic value.  The sole reason they are under review is because of their academic prowess.  If they were to be voted in to the ACC, their primary function would be to raise the overall academic standing of the conference.

[Goose]

To this point, neither school has been considered because they bring no revenue producing athletic value.  The sole reason they are under review is because of their academic prowess.

Absolutely true. Neither Stanford nor Cal brings any revenue producing athletic value, alone or in combination. End of story.

If they were to be voted in to the ACC, their primary function would be to raise the overall academic standing of the conference.

I don't agree here at all. While Stanford would indeed raise the overall academic standard, this is at best a tertiary consideration. If we get in, it will be because ESPN adds a full share and we take none of it. Everybody else gets say 8 million dollars more per year. The problem appears to be that isn't enough for some of the members. It is still about money, and little else.

[Goose]

To this point, neither school has been considered because they bring no revenue producing athletic value.  The sole reason they are under review is because of their academic prowess.

Absolutely true. Neither Stanford nor Cal brings any revenue producing athletic value, alone or in combination. End of story.

If they were to be voted in to the ACC, their primary function would be to raise the overall academic standing of the conference.

I don't agree here at all. While Stanford would indeed raise the overall academic standard, this is at best a tertiary consideration. If we get in, it will be because ESPN adds a full share and we take none of it. Everybody else gets say 8 million dollars more per year. The problem appears to be that isn't enough for some of the members. It is still about money, and little else.

[Giants]

To this point, neither school has been considered because they bring no revenue producing athletic value.  The sole reason they are under review is because of their academic prowess.

Absolutely true. Neither Stanford nor Cal brings any revenue producing athletic value, alone or in combination. End of story.

If they were to be voted in to the ACC, their primary function would be to raise the overall academic standing of the conference.

I don't agree here at all. While Stanford would indeed raise the overall academic standard, this is at best a tertiary consideration. If we get in, it will be because ESPN adds a full share and we take none of it. Everybody else gets say 8 million dollars more per year. The problem appears to be that isn't enough for some of the members. It is still about money, and little else.

I agree with your second point, perhaps I should have been more clear.  I am assuming the payout to both schools will be minimal at best.  For that reason, both Stanford or Cal would still be welcomed because of their academic status.  If Oregon State and WSU were willing to forego anything more than a minimal payout, would they be under consideration?  I doubt it because they do not have the same academic reputation.

[Giants]

To this point, neither school has been considered because they bring no revenue producing athletic value.  The sole reason they are under review is because of their academic prowess.

Absolutely true. Neither Stanford nor Cal brings any revenue producing athletic value, alone or in combination. End of story.

If they were to be voted in to the ACC, their primary function would be to raise the overall academic standing of the conference.

I don't agree here at all. While Stanford would indeed raise the overall academic standard, this is at best a tertiary consideration. If we get in, it will be because ESPN adds a full share and we take none of it. Everybody else gets say 8 million dollars more per year. The problem appears to be that isn't enough for some of the members. It is still about money, and little else.

I agree with your second point, perhaps I should have been more clear.  I am assuming the payout to both schools will be minimal at best.  For that reason, both Stanford or Cal would still be welcomed because of their academic status.  If Oregon State and WSU were willing to forego anything more than a minimal payout, would they be under consideration?  I doubt it because they do not have the same academic reputation.

[OutsiderFan]

To this point, neither school has been considered because they bring no revenue producing athletic value.  The sole reason they are under review is because of their academic prowess.

Absolutely true. Neither Stanford nor Cal brings any revenue producing athletic value, alone or in combination. End of story.

If they were to be voted in to the ACC, their primary function would be to raise the overall academic standing of the conference.

I don't agree here at all. While Stanford would indeed raise the overall academic standard, this is at best a tertiary consideration. If we get in, it will be because ESPN adds a full share and we take none of it. Everybody else gets say 8 million dollars more per year. The problem appears to be that isn't enough for some of the members. It is still about money, and little else.

I agree with your second point, perhaps I should have been more clear.  I am assuming the payout to both schools will be minimal at best.  For that reason, both Stanford or Cal would still be welcomed because of their academic status.  If Oregon State and WSU were willing to forego anything more than a minimal payout, would they be under consideration?  I doubt it because they do not have the same academic reputation.

They are also in Pullman and Corvallis. Not Berkeley and Palo Alto (SF Bay Area DMA).

[OutsiderFan]

To this point, neither school has been considered because they bring no revenue producing athletic value.  The sole reason they are under review is because of their academic prowess.

Absolutely true. Neither Stanford nor Cal brings any revenue producing athletic value, alone or in combination. End of story.

If they were to be voted in to the ACC, their primary function would be to raise the overall academic standing of the conference.

I don't agree here at all. While Stanford would indeed raise the overall academic standard, this is at best a tertiary consideration. If we get in, it will be because ESPN adds a full share and we take none of it. Everybody else gets say 8 million dollars more per year. The problem appears to be that isn't enough for some of the members. It is still about money, and little else.

I agree with your second point, perhaps I should have been more clear.  I am assuming the payout to both schools will be minimal at best.  For that reason, both Stanford or Cal would still be welcomed because of their academic status.  If Oregon State and WSU were willing to forego anything more than a minimal payout, would they be under consideration?  I doubt it because they do not have the same academic reputation.

They are also in Pullman and Corvallis. Not Berkeley and Palo Alto (SF Bay Area DMA).

[Giants]

To this point, neither school has been considered because they bring no revenue producing athletic value.  The sole reason they are under review is because of their academic prowess.

Absolutely true. Neither Stanford nor Cal brings any revenue producing athletic value, alone or in combination. End of story.

If they were to be voted in to the ACC, their primary function would be to raise the overall academic standing of the conference.

I don't agree here at all. While Stanford would indeed raise the overall academic standard, this is at best a tertiary consideration. If we get in, it will be because ESPN adds a full share and we take none of it. Everybody else gets say 8 million dollars more per year. The problem appears to be that isn't enough for some of the members. It is still about money, and little else.

I agree with your second point, perhaps I should have been more clear.  I am assuming the payout to both schools will be minimal at best.  For that reason, both Stanford or Cal would still be welcomed because of their academic status.  If Oregon State and WSU were willing to forego anything more than a minimal payout, would they be under consideration?  I doubt it because they do not have the same academic reputation.

They are also in Pullman and Corvallis. Not Berkeley and Palo Alto (SF Bay Area DMA).

And yet, despite the size of the Bay Area market, the Eugene and Seattle markets were more appealing. In other words, if nobody is interested in watching, market size means nothing.

[Giants]

To this point, neither school has been considered because they bring no revenue producing athletic value.  The sole reason they are under review is because of their academic prowess.

Absolutely true. Neither Stanford nor Cal brings any revenue producing athletic value, alone or in combination. End of story.

If they were to be voted in to the ACC, their primary function would be to raise the overall academic standing of the conference.

I don't agree here at all. While Stanford would indeed raise the overall academic standard, this is at best a tertiary consideration. If we get in, it will be because ESPN adds a full share and we take none of it. Everybody else gets say 8 million dollars more per year. The problem appears to be that isn't enough for some of the members. It is still about money, and little else.

I agree with your second point, perhaps I should have been more clear.  I am assuming the payout to both schools will be minimal at best.  For that reason, both Stanford or Cal would still be welcomed because of their academic status.  If Oregon State and WSU were willing to forego anything more than a minimal payout, would they be under consideration?  I doubt it because they do not have the same academic reputation.

They are also in Pullman and Corvallis. Not Berkeley and Palo Alto (SF Bay Area DMA).

And yet, despite the size of the Bay Area market, the Eugene and Seattle markets were more appealing. In other words, if nobody is interested in watching, market size means nothing.

[OutsiderFan]

And yet, despite the size of the Bay Area market, the Eugene and Seattle markets were more appealing. In other words, if nobody is interested in watching, market size means nothing.

Well, I would argue far fewer people gave a rip about Rutgers football than Cal and Stanford, when they joined the Big Ten. 

The Bay Area has 7.5M population, but only 2.5M TV households.  The Big Ten makes most of its money by cable fees customers are forced to pay to get the Big Ten Network in markets with Big Ten teams. U.S. cable subscriptions now have just 58% market share, and I would bet the Bay Area has less than that.

I don't think it's a matter of Cal and Stanford having no value per se, it's a matter of them not being properties the Big Ten Network can make money off by getting the BTN on basic cable packages in the Bay Area.

[OutsiderFan]

And yet, despite the size of the Bay Area market, the Eugene and Seattle markets were more appealing. In other words, if nobody is interested in watching, market size means nothing.

Well, I would argue far fewer people gave a rip about Rutgers football than Cal and Stanford, when they joined the Big Ten. 

The Bay Area has 7.5M population, but only 2.5M TV households.  The Big Ten makes most of its money by cable fees customers are forced to pay to get the Big Ten Network in markets with Big Ten teams. U.S. cable subscriptions now have just 58% market share, and I would bet the Bay Area has less than that.

I don't think it's a matter of Cal and Stanford having no value per se, it's a matter of them not being properties the Big Ten Network can make money off by getting the BTN on basic cable packages in the Bay Area.

[Spiny_Norman]

I don't think it's a matter of Cal and Stanford having no value per se, it's a matter of them not being properties the Big Ten Network can make money off by getting the BTN on basic cable packages in the Bay Area.

Why not? Part of the business case to the ACC for adding Stanford and Cal is to add carriage fees in California for the ACC Network. Why would it not work the same for the BTN?

[Spiny_Norman]

I don't think it's a matter of Cal and Stanford having no value per se, it's a matter of them not being properties the Big Ten Network can make money off by getting the BTN on basic cable packages in the Bay Area.

Why not? Part of the business case to the ACC for adding Stanford and Cal is to add carriage fees in California for the ACC Network. Why would it not work the same for the BTN?

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think it's a matter of Cal and Stanford having no value per se, it's a matter of them not being properties the Big Ten Network can make money off by getting the BTN on basic cable packages in the Bay Area.

Why not? Part of the business case to the ACC for adding Stanford and Cal is to add carriage fees in California for the ACC Network. Why would it not work the same for the BTN?

I think it has to do with share sizes. The Big Ten guarantees larger payouts, and nobody wants less than they have had before, so unless you can keep pace with what the other members are used to getting from an addition, it's not viable.

There is also a matter of what tier you're talking about. BTN goes on the most basic cable levels. I don't think the ACCN does. But that may not be a deal breaker because they don't have to get nearly as many Bay Area subs to make it work financially in terms of the payouts for ACC members.

Sure would love to know how many subscribers there would be for ACC Network in Bay Area and how many would get cable or DirecTV to watch Cal and Stanford on TV on ACCN.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think it's a matter of Cal and Stanford having no value per se, it's a matter of them not being properties the Big Ten Network can make money off by getting the BTN on basic cable packages in the Bay Area.

Why not? Part of the business case to the ACC for adding Stanford and Cal is to add carriage fees in California for the ACC Network. Why would it not work the same for the BTN?

I think it has to do with share sizes. The Big Ten guarantees larger payouts, and nobody wants less than they have had before, so unless you can keep pace with what the other members are used to getting from an addition, it's not viable.

There is also a matter of what tier you're talking about. BTN goes on the most basic cable levels. I don't think the ACCN does. But that may not be a deal breaker because they don't have to get nearly as many Bay Area subs to make it work financially in terms of the payouts for ACC members.

Sure would love to know how many subscribers there would be for ACC Network in Bay Area and how many would get cable or DirecTV to watch Cal and Stanford on TV on ACCN.

[chrisk]

Ohio State plucks Ted Carter from Nebraska system to be next president. Graduate of Naval Academy and former Navy flyer. Served 38 years.

[chrisk]

Ohio State plucks Ted Carter from Nebraska system to be next president. Graduate of Naval Academy and former Navy flyer. Served 38 years.

[Giants]

I don't think it's a matter of Cal and Stanford having no value per se, it's a matter of them not being properties the Big Ten Network can make money off by getting the BTN on basic cable packages in the Bay Area.

Why not? Part of the business case to the ACC for adding Stanford and Cal is to add carriage fees in California for the ACC Network. Why would it not work the same for the BTN?

I think it has to do with share sizes. The Big Ten guarantees larger payouts, and nobody wants less than they have had before, so unless you can keep pace with what the other members are used to getting from an addition, it's not viable.

There is also a matter of what tier you're talking about. BTN goes on the most basic cable levels. I don't think the ACCN does. But that may not be a deal breaker because they don't have to get nearly as many Bay Area subs to make it work financially in terms of the payouts for ACC members.

Sure would love to know how many subscribers there would be for ACC Network in Bay Area and how many would get cable or DirecTV to watch Cal and Stanford on TV on ACCN.

Don’t forget that ESPN owns the ACC network.  Therefore, all games on the ACC network are televised via ESPN+.  You don’t need cable to subscribe to the ACC Network.  You only need to stream the ESPN+ product.

[Giants]

I don't think it's a matter of Cal and Stanford having no value per se, it's a matter of them not being properties the Big Ten Network can make money off by getting the BTN on basic cable packages in the Bay Area.

Why not? Part of the business case to the ACC for adding Stanford and Cal is to add carriage fees in California for the ACC Network. Why would it not work the same for the BTN?

I think it has to do with share sizes. The Big Ten guarantees larger payouts, and nobody wants less than they have had before, so unless you can keep pace with what the other members are used to getting from an addition, it's not viable.

There is also a matter of what tier you're talking about. BTN goes on the most basic cable levels. I don't think the ACCN does. But that may not be a deal breaker because they don't have to get nearly as many Bay Area subs to make it work financially in terms of the payouts for ACC members.

Sure would love to know how many subscribers there would be for ACC Network in Bay Area and how many would get cable or DirecTV to watch Cal and Stanford on TV on ACCN.

Don’t forget that ESPN owns the ACC network.  Therefore, all games on the ACC network are televised via ESPN+.  You don’t need cable to subscribe to the ACC Network.  You only need to stream the ESPN+ product.