[Hieronymus]

It certainly makes watching the PAC network a weird experience - hyping a conference that is effectively dead. I certainly have no interest in say the history of territory cup anymore. ASU and UA are irrelevant to me now.

[Hieronymus]

It certainly makes watching the PAC network a weird experience - hyping a conference that is effectively dead. I certainly have no interest in say the history of territory cup anymore. ASU and UA are irrelevant to me now.

[oman]

Anybody watch the Bama game?

Who did they play?  Who benefited from Bama's terribleness?

[oman]

Anybody watch the Bama game?

Who did they play?  Who benefited from Bama's terribleness?

[JohnR34231]

Anybody watch the Bama game?

Who did they play?  Who benefited from Bama's terribleness?

They played Texas.
Who benefited? The teams below them in the polls.

[JohnR34231]

Anybody watch the Bama game?

Who did they play?  Who benefited from Bama's terribleness?

They played Texas.
Who benefited? The teams below them in the polls.

[Austroturf]

The transfer explosion couple with the demise of the PAC-12 has greatly diminished my interest in college football.

I share these sentiments.  The demise of the PAC-12 was driven by forces that are destroying traditional college football and replacing it with a two-tier semi-professional feeder system for the NFL.  But let's be clear: the NFL now has stricter guidelines and regulations on who can play where and who can transfer when and how much each team can spend on its roster.  

USC and UCLA dumped a century of tradition to increase their take in the media payout package.  With that money, they are certainly hoping to buy more transfers via NIL, more TV exposure for their athletes, better facilities, higher profile coaches, etc.  They kick-started an exodus of other PAC-12 members with the thinking that those who wait will lose (and they weren't wrong).  And all of this was just for football (maybe a bit for basketball) and completely ignored the needs of student athletes in other sports.  

Conferences used to have a regional significance, simply because excessive travel is onerous for the athletes, who are also students.  Even the NFL has regional divisions in which you play each divisional member home-and-away -- this builds meaningful rivalries that spur fan interest.  Regional significance is also reflected in many of the conference names in college sports: PAC-12, SEC, ACC, MWC, etc.  The B1G and the SEC have been driving the demolition of the traditional conference structure.  And the only driver for this?  Bucks.  

I still enjoy college football; but these developments (and every ad I see while watching the livestreams) make it clear that the product is no longer the same.  And the blow-out we witnessed in the Coliseum yesterday is clearly a sign of how winners and losers are being tailored in this brave new world of "media-money-rules-all".

So it's not the move to the ACC that diminishes my interest; it's the root cause of that move that diminishes my overall interest in college football as a whole.  Monied programs will rule; and the winners will drive further consolidation until, maybe, there is a semi-professional Power 1 "conference" of teams.

With UCLA ranked this week, the PAC now has 7 ranked teams.  The competition should be easier next year.  The new conference will provide much more national exposure.

46 years ago, Walsh lost by a bigger margin  at USC than Taylor did last night.  There are some short cycles and some longer cycles, but nothing is permanent.  It is possible that if college football sets up a top tier of 30-40 schools, Stanford may end up in the 2nd tier.  If tier 1 goes to a completely pro model, Stanford may be a better fit in Tier 2.

The current transfer mania has been partially fueled by the COVID eligibility rules.
Stanford will not be at as much of a disadvantage going forward.

The Pac-12 has 8 ranked teams.  Only Cal, Stanford, ASU and Arizona are outside the top 25.  Impressive.

[Austroturf]

The transfer explosion couple with the demise of the PAC-12 has greatly diminished my interest in college football.

I share these sentiments.  The demise of the PAC-12 was driven by forces that are destroying traditional college football and replacing it with a two-tier semi-professional feeder system for the NFL.  But let's be clear: the NFL now has stricter guidelines and regulations on who can play where and who can transfer when and how much each team can spend on its roster.  

USC and UCLA dumped a century of tradition to increase their take in the media payout package.  With that money, they are certainly hoping to buy more transfers via NIL, more TV exposure for their athletes, better facilities, higher profile coaches, etc.  They kick-started an exodus of other PAC-12 members with the thinking that those who wait will lose (and they weren't wrong).  And all of this was just for football (maybe a bit for basketball) and completely ignored the needs of student athletes in other sports.  

Conferences used to have a regional significance, simply because excessive travel is onerous for the athletes, who are also students.  Even the NFL has regional divisions in which you play each divisional member home-and-away -- this builds meaningful rivalries that spur fan interest.  Regional significance is also reflected in many of the conference names in college sports: PAC-12, SEC, ACC, MWC, etc.  The B1G and the SEC have been driving the demolition of the traditional conference structure.  And the only driver for this?  Bucks.  

I still enjoy college football; but these developments (and every ad I see while watching the livestreams) make it clear that the product is no longer the same.  And the blow-out we witnessed in the Coliseum yesterday is clearly a sign of how winners and losers are being tailored in this brave new world of "media-money-rules-all".

So it's not the move to the ACC that diminishes my interest; it's the root cause of that move that diminishes my overall interest in college football as a whole.  Monied programs will rule; and the winners will drive further consolidation until, maybe, there is a semi-professional Power 1 "conference" of teams.

With UCLA ranked this week, the PAC now has 7 ranked teams.  The competition should be easier next year.  The new conference will provide much more national exposure.

46 years ago, Walsh lost by a bigger margin  at USC than Taylor did last night.  There are some short cycles and some longer cycles, but nothing is permanent.  It is possible that if college football sets up a top tier of 30-40 schools, Stanford may end up in the 2nd tier.  If tier 1 goes to a completely pro model, Stanford may be a better fit in Tier 2.

The current transfer mania has been partially fueled by the COVID eligibility rules.
Stanford will not be at as much of a disadvantage going forward.

The Pac-12 has 8 ranked teams.  Only Cal, Stanford, ASU and Arizona are outside the top 25.  Impressive.

[Mick]

The transfer explosion couple with the demise of the PAC-12 has greatly diminished my interest in college football.

I share these sentiments.  The demise of the PAC-12 was driven by forces that are destroying traditional college football and replacing it with a two-tier semi-professional feeder system for the NFL.  But let's be clear: the NFL now has stricter guidelines and regulations on who can play where and who can transfer when and how much each team can spend on its roster.  

USC and UCLA dumped a century of tradition to increase their take in the media payout package.  With that money, they are certainly hoping to buy more transfers via NIL, more TV exposure for their athletes, better facilities, higher profile coaches, etc.  They kick-started an exodus of other PAC-12 members with the thinking that those who wait will lose (and they weren't wrong).  And all of this was just for football (maybe a bit for basketball) and completely ignored the needs of student athletes in other sports.  

Conferences used to have a regional significance, simply because excessive travel is onerous for the athletes, who are also students.  Even the NFL has regional divisions in which you play each divisional member home-and-away -- this builds meaningful rivalries that spur fan interest.  Regional significance is also reflected in many of the conference names in college sports: PAC-12, SEC, ACC, MWC, etc.  The B1G and the SEC have been driving the demolition of the traditional conference structure.  And the only driver for this?  Bucks.  

I still enjoy college football; but these developments (and every ad I see while watching the livestreams) make it clear that the product is no longer the same.  And the blow-out we witnessed in the Coliseum yesterday is clearly a sign of how winners and losers are being tailored in this brave new world of "media-money-rules-all".

So it's not the move to the ACC that diminishes my interest; it's the root cause of that move that diminishes my overall interest in college football as a whole.  Monied programs will rule; and the winners will drive further consolidation until, maybe, there is a semi-professional Power 1 "conference" of teams.

With UCLA ranked this week, the PAC now has 7 ranked teams.  The competition should be easier next year.  The new conference will provide much more national exposure.

46 years ago, Walsh lost by a bigger margin  at USC than Taylor did last night.  There are some short cycles and some longer cycles, but nothing is permanent.  It is possible that if college football sets up a top tier of 30-40 schools, Stanford may end up in the 2nd tier.  If tier 1 goes to a completely pro model, Stanford may be a better fit in Tier 2.

The current transfer mania has been partially fueled by the COVID eligibility rules.
Stanford will not be at as much of a disadvantage going forward.

The Pac-12 has 8 ranked teams.  Only Cal, Stanford, ASU and Arizona are outside the top 25.  Impressive.

Even more impressive, that's three more than any other conference. SEC has five, ACC and Big 10 have four each, Big 12 has three teams and the last is Notre Dame. 

Here’s how Pac-12 teams are ranked, in order, in the Week 3 AP poll:

• No. 5: USC — up one spot after 56-10 win over Stanford.
  
• No. 8: Washington — no change after 43-10 win over Tulsa.
  
• No. 12: Utah — no change after 20-13 win over Baylor.
  
• No. 13: Oregon — no change after 38-30 win over Texas Tech.
  
• No. 16: Oregon State — no change after 55-7 win over UC Davis.
  
• No. 18: Colorado — up four spots after 36-14 win over Nebraska.
  
• No. 23: Washington State — entered the poll after 31-22 win over then-No. 19 Wisconsin.
  
• No. 24: UCLA — entered the poll after 35-10 win over San Diego State.
  

Coach's poll doesn't include Washington State.

8 Pac-12 teams ranked in latest Associated Press poll, 3 more than any other conference

[Mick]

The transfer explosion couple with the demise of the PAC-12 has greatly diminished my interest in college football.

I share these sentiments.  The demise of the PAC-12 was driven by forces that are destroying traditional college football and replacing it with a two-tier semi-professional feeder system for the NFL.  But let's be clear: the NFL now has stricter guidelines and regulations on who can play where and who can transfer when and how much each team can spend on its roster.  

USC and UCLA dumped a century of tradition to increase their take in the media payout package.  With that money, they are certainly hoping to buy more transfers via NIL, more TV exposure for their athletes, better facilities, higher profile coaches, etc.  They kick-started an exodus of other PAC-12 members with the thinking that those who wait will lose (and they weren't wrong).  And all of this was just for football (maybe a bit for basketball) and completely ignored the needs of student athletes in other sports.  

Conferences used to have a regional significance, simply because excessive travel is onerous for the athletes, who are also students.  Even the NFL has regional divisions in which you play each divisional member home-and-away -- this builds meaningful rivalries that spur fan interest.  Regional significance is also reflected in many of the conference names in college sports: PAC-12, SEC, ACC, MWC, etc.  The B1G and the SEC have been driving the demolition of the traditional conference structure.  And the only driver for this?  Bucks.  

I still enjoy college football; but these developments (and every ad I see while watching the livestreams) make it clear that the product is no longer the same.  And the blow-out we witnessed in the Coliseum yesterday is clearly a sign of how winners and losers are being tailored in this brave new world of "media-money-rules-all".

So it's not the move to the ACC that diminishes my interest; it's the root cause of that move that diminishes my overall interest in college football as a whole.  Monied programs will rule; and the winners will drive further consolidation until, maybe, there is a semi-professional Power 1 "conference" of teams.

With UCLA ranked this week, the PAC now has 7 ranked teams.  The competition should be easier next year.  The new conference will provide much more national exposure.

46 years ago, Walsh lost by a bigger margin  at USC than Taylor did last night.  There are some short cycles and some longer cycles, but nothing is permanent.  It is possible that if college football sets up a top tier of 30-40 schools, Stanford may end up in the 2nd tier.  If tier 1 goes to a completely pro model, Stanford may be a better fit in Tier 2.

The current transfer mania has been partially fueled by the COVID eligibility rules.
Stanford will not be at as much of a disadvantage going forward.

The Pac-12 has 8 ranked teams.  Only Cal, Stanford, ASU and Arizona are outside the top 25.  Impressive.

Even more impressive, that's three more than any other conference. SEC has five, ACC and Big 10 have four each, Big 12 has three teams and the last is Notre Dame. 

Here’s how Pac-12 teams are ranked, in order, in the Week 3 AP poll:

• No. 5: USC — up one spot after 56-10 win over Stanford.
  
• No. 8: Washington — no change after 43-10 win over Tulsa.
  
• No. 12: Utah — no change after 20-13 win over Baylor.
  
• No. 13: Oregon — no change after 38-30 win over Texas Tech.
  
• No. 16: Oregon State — no change after 55-7 win over UC Davis.
  
• No. 18: Colorado — up four spots after 36-14 win over Nebraska.
  
• No. 23: Washington State — entered the poll after 31-22 win over then-No. 19 Wisconsin.
  
• No. 24: UCLA — entered the poll after 35-10 win over San Diego State.
  

Coach's poll doesn't include Washington State.

8 Pac-12 teams ranked in latest Associated Press poll, 3 more than any other conference

[ColoradoTree]

Responding to the original question, it doesn't diminish my enthusiasm for the final Pac-12 season in the sports I care most about, not even a bit. And frankly, it heightens it--I'm going to relish every game or match against UCLA and USC in soccer and tennis more than I usually do (which is a lot). I always, uh, strongly disliked USC in all sports, but for the most part I was fairly neutral toward UCLA (with the exception of women's tennis). Well, that's changed. They've earned my everlasting dislike. 

My feelings toward the other soon-to-be-former Pac-12 teams depends in large part on their role in the conference's demise. We could have survived as a Pac-10, so Colorado kicking off the last round of destabilization means I am now fervently anti-Buff. For the schools that seemed to be trying to hold the Pac-12 together like ASU and Utah, I have some increased goodwill. And while I certainly don't like Oregon or Washington, I can't really blame them for preferring stability in the Big Ten, given what the alternatives looked like. I think I'll always root a little for Wazzu now--they've always been a plucky, fun underdog. And I can't say that I've ever cared very much about Oregon State one way or the other (the fact they're the only Pac-12 team not to field a women's tennis team probably has something to do with that). 

And then there's Cal. Sure, I dislike them, but I also feel a lot more empathy for them as this realignment process has unfolded. We're tied to them, and them to us. They're family. Family we argue with at Thanksgiving, and maybe more than argue, but everyone else is gone and they're still here. 

But all of that applies to non-football sports. My expectations coming into this season were low, but I was hopeful we'd be competitive. After this weekend, I can't imagine spending a lot of time thinking about or watching Stanford/Pac-12 football is going to give me much joy, so I'll likely emotionally divest from college football for the time being. And I find myself completely uninterested in the overall performance of the conference in football. We are contributing nothing towards that success, and it won't help us a bit moving forward, so I just don't care. If the Pac-12 weren't about to die, however, I'd take some pride in the fact that the Pac-12 seems to be a pretty darn good football conference for once.

[ColoradoTree]

Responding to the original question, it doesn't diminish my enthusiasm for the final Pac-12 season in the sports I care most about, not even a bit. And frankly, it heightens it--I'm going to relish every game or match against UCLA and USC in soccer and tennis more than I usually do (which is a lot). I always, uh, strongly disliked USC in all sports, but for the most part I was fairly neutral toward UCLA (with the exception of women's tennis). Well, that's changed. They've earned my everlasting dislike. 

My feelings toward the other soon-to-be-former Pac-12 teams depends in large part on their role in the conference's demise. We could have survived as a Pac-10, so Colorado kicking off the last round of destabilization means I am now fervently anti-Buff. For the schools that seemed to be trying to hold the Pac-12 together like ASU and Utah, I have some increased goodwill. And while I certainly don't like Oregon or Washington, I can't really blame them for preferring stability in the Big Ten, given what the alternatives looked like. I think I'll always root a little for Wazzu now--they've always been a plucky, fun underdog. And I can't say that I've ever cared very much about Oregon State one way or the other (the fact they're the only Pac-12 team not to field a women's tennis team probably has something to do with that). 

And then there's Cal. Sure, I dislike them, but I also feel a lot more empathy for them as this realignment process has unfolded. We're tied to them, and them to us. They're family. Family we argue with at Thanksgiving, and maybe more than argue, but everyone else is gone and they're still here. 

But all of that applies to non-football sports. My expectations coming into this season were low, but I was hopeful we'd be competitive. After this weekend, I can't imagine spending a lot of time thinking about or watching Stanford/Pac-12 football is going to give me much joy, so I'll likely emotionally divest from college football for the time being. And I find myself completely uninterested in the overall performance of the conference in football. We are contributing nothing towards that success, and it won't help us a bit moving forward, so I just don't care. If the Pac-12 weren't about to die, however, I'd take some pride in the fact that the Pac-12 seems to be a pretty darn good football conference for once.

[fullmetal]

It's a shame that USC/UCLA shattered the ties between the California Four as well as the Pac-12.  Was it the doing of athletic directors who have zero west coast ties?  Or an ineffectual conference commissioner?  Or was the money just too much (blame Fox Sports)?

[fullmetal]

It's a shame that USC/UCLA shattered the ties between the California Four as well as the Pac-12.  Was it the doing of athletic directors who have zero west coast ties?  Or an ineffectual conference commissioner?  Or was the money just too much (blame Fox Sports)?

[Mick]

It's a shame that USC/UCLA shattered the ties between the California Four as well as the Pac-12.  Was it the doing of athletic directors who have zero west coast ties?  Or an ineffectual conference commissioner?  Or was the money just too much (blame Fox Sports)?

I really hope we don't schedule USC or UCLA in the future.

[Mick]

It's a shame that USC/UCLA shattered the ties between the California Four as well as the Pac-12.  Was it the doing of athletic directors who have zero west coast ties?  Or an ineffectual conference commissioner?  Or was the money just too much (blame Fox Sports)?

I really hope we don't schedule USC or UCLA in the future.

[pefloresjr]

It's a shame that USC/UCLA shattered the ties between the California Four as well as the Pac-12.  Was it the doing of athletic directors who have zero west coast ties?  Or an ineffectual conference commissioner?  Or was the money just too much (blame Fox Sports)?

I really hope we don't schedule USC or UCLA in the future.

I say we only play them for a 45 million dollar fee.  That would even the books for the year.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

It's a shame that USC/UCLA shattered the ties between the California Four as well as the Pac-12.  Was it the doing of athletic directors who have zero west coast ties?  Or an ineffectual conference commissioner?  Or was the money just too much (blame Fox Sports)?

I really hope we don't schedule USC or UCLA in the future.

I say we only play them for a 45 million dollar fee.  That would even the books for the year.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[ColoradoTree]

It's a shame that USC/UCLA shattered the ties between the California Four as well as the Pac-12.  Was it the doing of athletic directors who have zero west coast ties?  Or an ineffectual conference commissioner?  Or was the money just too much (blame Fox Sports)?

I really hope we don't schedule USC or UCLA in the future.

In terms of football or basketball, we probably won't. But in the Olympic sports, I expect we'll continue to schedule them when it makes sense, if only because we don't have too many other options for high-level opponents in a number of sports that aren't several hours away. 

And it's not the Olympic sports that are driving this madness anyway, so I wonder how much ill will there is at that level. If you're a UCLA women's tennis player or coach (Stella Sampras Webster has to hate this change), I would think you'd much prefer staying in the Pac-12 than having road trips to Ann Arbor, Piscataway, State College, or College Park. I think it benefits both us and them to keep playing them in certain sports like tennis. (And, for those of you who have been around a while and have heard me bemoan our relatively weak non-conference schedules in women's tennis due to the relative weakness of the Pac-12, if we kept playing UCLA/USC (plus Pepperdine) out of conference, we'd go from one of the weaker schedules to one of the stronger ones given how much better our in-conference competition is about to be.)

[ColoradoTree]

It's a shame that USC/UCLA shattered the ties between the California Four as well as the Pac-12.  Was it the doing of athletic directors who have zero west coast ties?  Or an ineffectual conference commissioner?  Or was the money just too much (blame Fox Sports)?

I really hope we don't schedule USC or UCLA in the future.

In terms of football or basketball, we probably won't. But in the Olympic sports, I expect we'll continue to schedule them when it makes sense, if only because we don't have too many other options for high-level opponents in a number of sports that aren't several hours away. 

And it's not the Olympic sports that are driving this madness anyway, so I wonder how much ill will there is at that level. If you're a UCLA women's tennis player or coach (Stella Sampras Webster has to hate this change), I would think you'd much prefer staying in the Pac-12 than having road trips to Ann Arbor, Piscataway, State College, or College Park. I think it benefits both us and them to keep playing them in certain sports like tennis. (And, for those of you who have been around a while and have heard me bemoan our relatively weak non-conference schedules in women's tennis due to the relative weakness of the Pac-12, if we kept playing UCLA/USC (plus Pepperdine) out of conference, we'd go from one of the weaker schedules to one of the stronger ones given how much better our in-conference competition is about to be.)

[Mick]

If you get a chance, check out Stewart Mandel's interesting article "Which college football teams are most helped -- and hurt -- by conference realignment?" in The Athletic. His take on the Pac-12 teams and how realignment affected them:

Stanford & Cal: Much, much worse, will have a far more difficult time in the ACC than the Pac-12. I don't get or agree with his take, which is that Stanford will suffer in the transfer era more in the ACC than in the Pac-12. And neither team gets a full share.

Oregon will do a little better, USC and Washington will do a little worse, UCLA will do a lot worse in the Big 10. Oregon recruits more nationally and  he thinks they'll have regular CFP appearances. USC, on the other hand, goes from most prestigious Pac-12 team to a near also-ran, third banana at best, and possibly fifth behind OSU, Mich, Penn St and Oregon. He discounts Washington because they're in a tougher league. And he considers UCLA a basketball school that happens to have a football team with an insufficient NIL program and opponents who are big brand/football-first teams.

Colorado, mildly better in the Big 12 thanks to the territorial footprint, though with NIL shortcomings. Utah, mildly worse because they had a good thing going in Pac-12, but now BYU will be their brobdingnagian competition, so Utah will suffer. AZ and ASU will really suffer, at least in part because ASU's president didn't want to make this move and those two schools live in a pro market, unlike Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, West VIrginia, BYU, etc.

Lastly, he thinks OSU and WSU as de facto Mountain West schools have no guaranteed access to the playoffs, so this was horrible for them. Unless they resurrect the Pac 12 with better MWC/AAC/Independent schools, he's probably right.

His final takeaway on the Pac-12 "It will never not be stupefying to think about how Pac-12 leadership screwed it up so badly." Yup.

If you get the NYT, you should be able to access this:  https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5611204...it-impact/

[Mick]

If you get a chance, check out Stewart Mandel's interesting article "Which college football teams are most helped -- and hurt -- by conference realignment?" in The Athletic. His take on the Pac-12 teams and how realignment affected them:

Stanford & Cal: Much, much worse, will have a far more difficult time in the ACC than the Pac-12. I don't get or agree with his take, which is that Stanford will suffer in the transfer era more in the ACC than in the Pac-12. And neither team gets a full share.

Oregon will do a little better, USC and Washington will do a little worse, UCLA will do a lot worse in the Big 10. Oregon recruits more nationally and  he thinks they'll have regular CFP appearances. USC, on the other hand, goes from most prestigious Pac-12 team to a near also-ran, third banana at best, and possibly fifth behind OSU, Mich, Penn St and Oregon. He discounts Washington because they're in a tougher league. And he considers UCLA a basketball school that happens to have a football team with an insufficient NIL program and opponents who are big brand/football-first teams.

Colorado, mildly better in the Big 12 thanks to the territorial footprint, though with NIL shortcomings. Utah, mildly worse because they had a good thing going in Pac-12, but now BYU will be their brobdingnagian competition, so Utah will suffer. AZ and ASU will really suffer, at least in part because ASU's president didn't want to make this move and those two schools live in a pro market, unlike Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, West VIrginia, BYU, etc.

Lastly, he thinks OSU and WSU as de facto Mountain West schools have no guaranteed access to the playoffs, so this was horrible for them. Unless they resurrect the Pac 12 with better MWC/AAC/Independent schools, he's probably right.

His final takeaway on the Pac-12 "It will never not be stupefying to think about how Pac-12 leadership screwed it up so badly." Yup.

If you get the NYT, you should be able to access this:  https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5611204...it-impact/

[Goose]

For me, the new situation does diminish my enthusiasm considerably. To be sure I am interested in the "new experiences and relationships" that will be developed in the ACC (hopefully). However, my history in the PAC-8,10,12 has existed for about 64 years. I even remember the "Great Pumpkin". Some of this connection predates my Stanford fandom. Beating USC in each and every sport was a source of significant joy. Playing USC, win or lose, was always a rewarding (although often agonizing as well) experience. We have a "history" with all the teams in the PAC-12, even the newer ones. There is a context to the games. Every game "mattered". We have none of that with the ACC teams. This lack of context certainly diminishes my enthusiasm.

[Goose]

For me, the new situation does diminish my enthusiasm considerably. To be sure I am interested in the "new experiences and relationships" that will be developed in the ACC (hopefully). However, my history in the PAC-8,10,12 has existed for about 64 years. I even remember the "Great Pumpkin". Some of this connection predates my Stanford fandom. Beating USC in each and every sport was a source of significant joy. Playing USC, win or lose, was always a rewarding (although often agonizing as well) experience. We have a "history" with all the teams in the PAC-12, even the newer ones. There is a context to the games. Every game "mattered". We have none of that with the ACC teams. This lack of context certainly diminishes my enthusiasm.

[Sakibomb25]

It’s not the move to the ACC that has me less interested in college sports - it’s the whole set-up with the NIL and lack of transfer rules. 

The news of NiJaree Canady going into the portal was the last straw for me. The fact that these are now semi-pro athletes really doesn’t interest me. In the past, you could watch athletes have great four-year careers as star freshmen, or root for the juniors or seniors who worked hard to earn their spot in the starting line-up. Those days are few and far between. If someone has a great year, there is always that thought of will they be back? Or will they be bought off to the highest bidder? I have to believe, three years ago, if Kiki Iriafen is done with school, she’s still be at Stanford to play her fourth year rather than being bought off by USC.

I don’t harbor any ill will towards the student athletes - if someone is throwing me a bunch of money at that age, of course I would take it. It’s the smart financial decision that can set you up for the rest of your life. It’s just the system is so broken and that fault lies entirely with the NCAA. What they are selling does not hold true anymore so that’s why I just don’t have a brobdingnagian interest anymore in college sports.

[Sakibomb25]

It’s not the move to the ACC that has me less interested in college sports - it’s the whole set-up with the NIL and lack of transfer rules. 

The news of NiJaree Canady going into the portal was the last straw for me. The fact that these are now semi-pro athletes really doesn’t interest me. In the past, you could watch athletes have great four-year careers as star freshmen, or root for the juniors or seniors who worked hard to earn their spot in the starting line-up. Those days are few and far between. If someone has a great year, there is always that thought of will they be back? Or will they be bought off to the highest bidder? I have to believe, three years ago, if Kiki Iriafen is done with school, she’s still be at Stanford to play her fourth year rather than being bought off by USC.

I don’t harbor any ill will towards the student athletes - if someone is throwing me a bunch of money at that age, of course I would take it. It’s the smart financial decision that can set you up for the rest of your life. It’s just the system is so broken and that fault lies entirely with the NCAA. What they are selling does not hold true anymore so that’s why I just don’t have a brobdingnagian interest anymore in college sports.

[JeffInCorvallis]

It’s not the move to the ACC that has me less interested in college sports - it’s the whole set-up with the NIL and lack of transfer rules. 

The news of NiJaree Canady going into the portal was the last straw for me. The fact that these are now semi-pro athletes really doesn’t interest me. In the past, you could watch athletes have great four-year careers as star freshmen, or root for the juniors or seniors who worked hard to earn their spot in the starting line-up. Those days are few and far between. If someone has a great year, there is always that thought of will they be back? Or will they be bought off to the highest bidder? I have to believe, three years ago, if Kiki Iriafen is done with school, she’s still be at Stanford to play her fourth year rather than being bought off by USC.

I don’t harbor any ill will towards the student athletes - if someone is throwing me a bunch of money at that age, of course I would take it. It’s the smart financial decision that can set you up for the rest of your life. It’s just the system is so broken and that fault lies entirely with the NCAA. What they are selling does not hold true anymore so that’s why I just don’t have a of immense proportions interest anymore in college sports.

It reinforces the narrative that college sports are just about money. You understand, as a fan, that pro teams are all about money. Your favorite team may trade your favorite player and you get that it's part of the business. Sure, there are guys and gals that ask for a trade or become free agents, and you sort of expect that on some level. You might be unhappy that the 49ers traded away Joe Montana, but at some level you got it. You tell yourself that somehow, deep down, he's still a 49er at heart even though he might play somewhere else just to bank the money. You hold the cognitive dissonance in your head and allow yourself to go with it.

But *college* sports, those are somehow different, somehow more pure. Sure, it's naive, but you convince yourself that this is the case. Andrew Luck would have been a great player no matter where he went to school, but somehow the fact that he attended the school that I root for makes him great. He comes back, shows up at events, gets a Master's degree, he's all in. But this illusion is shattered by the transfer portal. What, you aren't totally satisfied at my school? You don't like the coach, or the playing time, or your teammates, or the weather, or you just want to play closer to your family? How could you be this disloyal? But the truth is harsh: not only do Austin Jones and Kiki Iriafen not stay loyal to Stanford, they choose to transfer to 

...USC.

This, more than anything, demonstrates that they never really got Stanford. This is why interest in college sports is going to decrease. Clearly, there needs to be a mechanism for athletes (or any student) to transfer if the school isn't meeting their needs, but the current free-for-all is ruining this, even if it was something of an illusion all along.

[JeffInCorvallis]

It’s not the move to the ACC that has me less interested in college sports - it’s the whole set-up with the NIL and lack of transfer rules. 

The news of NiJaree Canady going into the portal was the last straw for me. The fact that these are now semi-pro athletes really doesn’t interest me. In the past, you could watch athletes have great four-year careers as star freshmen, or root for the juniors or seniors who worked hard to earn their spot in the starting line-up. Those days are few and far between. If someone has a great year, there is always that thought of will they be back? Or will they be bought off to the highest bidder? I have to believe, three years ago, if Kiki Iriafen is done with school, she’s still be at Stanford to play her fourth year rather than being bought off by USC.

I don’t harbor any ill will towards the student athletes - if someone is throwing me a bunch of money at that age, of course I would take it. It’s the smart financial decision that can set you up for the rest of your life. It’s just the system is so broken and that fault lies entirely with the NCAA. What they are selling does not hold true anymore so that’s why I just don’t have a of immense proportions interest anymore in college sports.

It reinforces the narrative that college sports are just about money. You understand, as a fan, that pro teams are all about money. Your favorite team may trade your favorite player and you get that it's part of the business. Sure, there are guys and gals that ask for a trade or become free agents, and you sort of expect that on some level. You might be unhappy that the 49ers traded away Joe Montana, but at some level you got it. You tell yourself that somehow, deep down, he's still a 49er at heart even though he might play somewhere else just to bank the money. You hold the cognitive dissonance in your head and allow yourself to go with it.

But *college* sports, those are somehow different, somehow more pure. Sure, it's naive, but you convince yourself that this is the case. Andrew Luck would have been a great player no matter where he went to school, but somehow the fact that he attended the school that I root for makes him great. He comes back, shows up at events, gets a Master's degree, he's all in. But this illusion is shattered by the transfer portal. What, you aren't totally satisfied at my school? You don't like the coach, or the playing time, or your teammates, or the weather, or you just want to play closer to your family? How could you be this disloyal? But the truth is harsh: not only do Austin Jones and Kiki Iriafen not stay loyal to Stanford, they choose to transfer to 

...USC.

This, more than anything, demonstrates that they never really got Stanford. This is why interest in college sports is going to decrease. Clearly, there needs to be a mechanism for athletes (or any student) to transfer if the school isn't meeting their needs, but the current free-for-all is ruining this, even if it was something of an illusion all along.

[Bampa]

It’s not the move to the ACC that has me less interested in college sports - it’s the whole set-up with the NIL and lack of transfer rules. 

The news of NiJaree Canady going into the portal was the last straw for me. The fact that these are now semi-pro athletes really doesn’t interest me. In the past, you could watch athletes have great four-year careers as star freshmen, or root for the juniors or seniors who worked hard to earn their spot in the starting line-up. Those days are few and far between. If someone has a great year, there is always that thought of will they be back? Or will they be bought off to the highest bidder? I have to believe, three years ago, if Kiki Iriafen is done with school, she’s still be at Stanford to play her fourth year rather than being bought off by USC.

I don’t harbor any ill will towards the student athletes - if someone is throwing me a bunch of money at that age, of course I would take it. It’s the smart financial decision that can set you up for the rest of your life. It’s just the system is so broken and that fault lies entirely with the NCAA. What they are selling does not hold true anymore so that’s why I just don’t have a of immense proportions interest anymore in college sports.

 +1

[Bampa]

It’s not the move to the ACC that has me less interested in college sports - it’s the whole set-up with the NIL and lack of transfer rules. 

The news of NiJaree Canady going into the portal was the last straw for me. The fact that these are now semi-pro athletes really doesn’t interest me. In the past, you could watch athletes have great four-year careers as star freshmen, or root for the juniors or seniors who worked hard to earn their spot in the starting line-up. Those days are few and far between. If someone has a great year, there is always that thought of will they be back? Or will they be bought off to the highest bidder? I have to believe, three years ago, if Kiki Iriafen is done with school, she’s still be at Stanford to play her fourth year rather than being bought off by USC.

I don’t harbor any ill will towards the student athletes - if someone is throwing me a bunch of money at that age, of course I would take it. It’s the smart financial decision that can set you up for the rest of your life. It’s just the system is so broken and that fault lies entirely with the NCAA. What they are selling does not hold true anymore so that’s why I just don’t have a of immense proportions interest anymore in college sports.

 +1

[Goose]

It’s not the move to the ACC that has me less interested in college sports - it’s the whole set-up with the NIL and lack of transfer rules. 

The news of NiJaree Canady going into the portal was the last straw for me. The fact that these are now semi-pro athletes really doesn’t interest me. In the past, you could watch athletes have great four-year careers as star freshmen, or root for the juniors or seniors who worked hard to earn their spot in the starting line-up. Those days are few and far between. If someone has a great year, there is always that thought of will they be back? Or will they be bought off to the highest bidder? I have to believe, three years ago, if Kiki Iriafen is done with school, she’s still be at Stanford to play her fourth year rather than being bought off by USC.

I don’t harbor any ill will towards the student athletes - if someone is throwing me a bunch of money at that age, of course I would take it. It’s the smart financial decision that can set you up for the rest of your life. It’s just the system is so broken and that fault lies entirely with the NCAA. What they are selling does not hold true anymore so that’s why I just don’t have a of immense proportions interest anymore in college sports.

 +1

I agree that the climate in college athletics today greatly discourages any enthusiasm for the sports. That alone is enough to make being a fan much less enjoyable. Yes, part of it was illusions. But it was at least somewhat possible to entertain those illusions. Today, that is impossible. Actions and events daily remind us all that it isn't what we thought it was. What it is unfortunately much less attractive.

However, IMO the above is all true whether the PAC-12 survived or not. The fact we are now in the ACC add a whole additional layer of reasons to be less interested.

[Goose]

It’s not the move to the ACC that has me less interested in college sports - it’s the whole set-up with the NIL and lack of transfer rules. 

The news of NiJaree Canady going into the portal was the last straw for me. The fact that these are now semi-pro athletes really doesn’t interest me. In the past, you could watch athletes have great four-year careers as star freshmen, or root for the juniors or seniors who worked hard to earn their spot in the starting line-up. Those days are few and far between. If someone has a great year, there is always that thought of will they be back? Or will they be bought off to the highest bidder? I have to believe, three years ago, if Kiki Iriafen is done with school, she’s still be at Stanford to play her fourth year rather than being bought off by USC.

I don’t harbor any ill will towards the student athletes - if someone is throwing me a bunch of money at that age, of course I would take it. It’s the smart financial decision that can set you up for the rest of your life. It’s just the system is so broken and that fault lies entirely with the NCAA. What they are selling does not hold true anymore so that’s why I just don’t have a of immense proportions interest anymore in college sports.

 +1

I agree that the climate in college athletics today greatly discourages any enthusiasm for the sports. That alone is enough to make being a fan much less enjoyable. Yes, part of it was illusions. But it was at least somewhat possible to entertain those illusions. Today, that is impossible. Actions and events daily remind us all that it isn't what we thought it was. What it is unfortunately much less attractive.

However, IMO the above is all true whether the PAC-12 survived or not. The fact we are now in the ACC add a whole additional layer of reasons to be less interested.

[Giants]

It’s not the move to the ACC that has me less interested in college sports - it’s the whole set-up with the NIL and lack of transfer rules. 

The news of NiJaree Canady going into the portal was the last straw for me. The fact that these are now semi-pro athletes really doesn’t interest me. In the past, you could watch athletes have great four-year careers as star freshmen, or root for the juniors or seniors who worked hard to earn their spot in the starting line-up. Those days are few and far between. If someone has a great year, there is always that thought of will they be back? Or will they be bought off to the highest bidder? I have to believe, three years ago, if Kiki Iriafen is done with school, she’s still be at Stanford to play her fourth year rather than being bought off by USC.

I don’t harbor any ill will towards the student athletes - if someone is throwing me a bunch of money at that age, of course I would take it. It’s the smart financial decision that can set you up for the rest of your life. It’s just the system is so broken and that fault lies entirely with the NCAA. What they are selling does not hold true anymore so that’s why I just don’t have a of immense proportions interest anymore in college sports.

Any recent decision made by the NCAA short of where we are today would have resulted in the same situation in which we currently find ourselves due to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision re: antitrust concerns.

As for the level of enthusiasm for college sports, I think the topic needs to be seen on a national level to make an informed analysis. Using that lens, I think we would see the interest in college athletics has never been greater. Of course, using a more parochial lens, I think the level of interest is quite low.

[Giants]

It’s not the move to the ACC that has me less interested in college sports - it’s the whole set-up with the NIL and lack of transfer rules. 

The news of NiJaree Canady going into the portal was the last straw for me. The fact that these are now semi-pro athletes really doesn’t interest me. In the past, you could watch athletes have great four-year careers as star freshmen, or root for the juniors or seniors who worked hard to earn their spot in the starting line-up. Those days are few and far between. If someone has a great year, there is always that thought of will they be back? Or will they be bought off to the highest bidder? I have to believe, three years ago, if Kiki Iriafen is done with school, she’s still be at Stanford to play her fourth year rather than being bought off by USC.

I don’t harbor any ill will towards the student athletes - if someone is throwing me a bunch of money at that age, of course I would take it. It’s the smart financial decision that can set you up for the rest of your life. It’s just the system is so broken and that fault lies entirely with the NCAA. What they are selling does not hold true anymore so that’s why I just don’t have a of immense proportions interest anymore in college sports.

Any recent decision made by the NCAA short of where we are today would have resulted in the same situation in which we currently find ourselves due to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision re: antitrust concerns.

As for the level of enthusiasm for college sports, I think the topic needs to be seen on a national level to make an informed analysis. Using that lens, I think we would see the interest in college athletics has never been greater. Of course, using a more parochial lens, I think the level of interest is quite low.

[martyup]

It's the "Atlantic Coast" Conference.  We are on the Pacific coast.  This is insane.

[martyup]

It's the "Atlantic Coast" Conference.  We are on the Pacific coast.  This is insane.

[82lsju]

while I understand the financial realities of the change I have to say I am less engaged.  I'm only a football season ticket holder but a big part of my purchase decision has been the social aspects around football games, primarily tailgating.  Over the last few years we have had a slow decline in the numbers of our tailgate crew, for the upcoming year the drop was significant (~20%) I'm not sure that we have a sustainable group going forward, we'll see what happens when the next renewals happen

[82lsju]

while I understand the financial realities of the change I have to say I am less engaged.  I'm only a football season ticket holder but a big part of my purchase decision has been the social aspects around football games, primarily tailgating.  Over the last few years we have had a slow decline in the numbers of our tailgate crew, for the upcoming year the drop was significant (~20%) I'm not sure that we have a sustainable group going forward, we'll see what happens when the next renewals happen

[qwerty49]

The conference move is not the prime concern for me. I just feel Stanford is losing its ability to be competitive in athletics. I used to think the leakage was mainly in the major/revenue sports but when Canady entered the portal that signaled that the problem was pervasive.

Our ability to attract top athletes is greatly diminished. The “40-year decision” has become an outdated and irrelevant concept, and yes, it’s all about the Benjamins. Our own structural impediments (eg draconian restrictions on incoming transfer admissions) don’t help. I have little faith in our institutional desire and ability to retain the Canadys and Iriafens of the future. I really don’t think our administration views intercollegiate athletics as anything more than a bemused cocktail party conversation topic.  I’m not convinced Stanford really understands the new playing field.

All this eventually points toward mediocrity and I’m enough of a fair weather fan to find other things to occupy my time. A 4-8 football season with wins over schools like, say, Cal Poly, Sac State, Duke and Boston College doesn’t really do it for me.

Of course, Kal is in the same boat. I don’t count that as a plus point.

[qwerty49]

The conference move is not the prime concern for me. I just feel Stanford is losing its ability to be competitive in athletics. I used to think the leakage was mainly in the major/revenue sports but when Canady entered the portal that signaled that the problem was pervasive.

Our ability to attract top athletes is greatly diminished. The “40-year decision” has become an outdated and irrelevant concept, and yes, it’s all about the Benjamins. Our own structural impediments (eg draconian restrictions on incoming transfer admissions) don’t help. I have little faith in our institutional desire and ability to retain the Canadys and Iriafens of the future. I really don’t think our administration views intercollegiate athletics as anything more than a bemused cocktail party conversation topic.  I’m not convinced Stanford really understands the new playing field.

All this eventually points toward mediocrity and I’m enough of a fair weather fan to find other things to occupy my time. A 4-8 football season with wins over schools like, say, Cal Poly, Sac State, Duke and Boston College doesn’t really do it for me.

Of course, Kal is in the same boat. I don’t count that as a plus point.