Yesterday, 10:48 AM
FB -- Elon Game Thread
Yesterday, 11:03 AM
Louisa Thomas, a writer for The New Yorker (and Mrs. John Urschel, for those who follow every thread here), crashed the Elon post-game press conference.
Kind of hilarious to hear her ask about how the tech culture has changed Stanford over the years (in addition to more football-related questions about *checks notes* how Andrew Luck has changed over the years).
Pritchard seemed game and answered thoughtfully, fwiw. (Would have been more hilarious if she had asked these type of questions after a loss.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iLuzf5Fmtk
Kind of hilarious to hear her ask about how the tech culture has changed Stanford over the years (in addition to more football-related questions about *checks notes* how Andrew Luck has changed over the years).
Pritchard seemed game and answered thoughtfully, fwiw. (Would have been more hilarious if she had asked these type of questions after a loss.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iLuzf5Fmtk
Louisa Thomas, a writer for The New Yorker (and Mrs. John Urschel, for those who follow every thread here), crashed the Elon post-game press conference.
Kind of hilarious to hear her ask about how the tech culture has changed Stanford over the years (in addition to more football-related questions about *checks notes* how Andrew Luck has changed over the years).
Pritchard seemed game and answered thoughtfully, fwiw. (Would have been more hilarious if she had asked these type of questions after a loss.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iLuzf5Fmtk
Kind of hilarious to hear her ask about how the tech culture has changed Stanford over the years (in addition to more football-related questions about *checks notes* how Andrew Luck has changed over the years).
Pritchard seemed game and answered thoughtfully, fwiw. (Would have been more hilarious if she had asked these type of questions after a loss.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iLuzf5Fmtk
Yesterday, 11:14 AM
https://share.google/T3NLrEjP8B3tBbfJd
I thought that this was a pretty good look on Jim Plunkett, the Thunderchickens, and lots of other future NFL players of the 1971 and 1972 Rose Bowl championship teams.
I thought that this was a pretty good look on Jim Plunkett, the Thunderchickens, and lots of other future NFL players of the 1971 and 1972 Rose Bowl championship teams.
https://share.google/T3NLrEjP8B3tBbfJd
I thought that this was a pretty good look on Jim Plunkett, the Thunderchickens, and lots of other future NFL players of the 1971 and 1972 Rose Bowl championship teams.
I thought that this was a pretty good look on Jim Plunkett, the Thunderchickens, and lots of other future NFL players of the 1971 and 1972 Rose Bowl championship teams.
Yesterday, 12:03 PM
(Yesterday, 11:03 AM)needle Wrote: Louisa Thomas, a writer for The New Yorker (and Mrs. John Urschel, for those who follow every thread here), crashed the Elon post-game press conference.More on Ms. Thomas and Mr. Urschel.
Kind of hilarious to hear her ask about how the tech culture has changed Stanford over the years (in addition to more football-related questions about *checks notes* how Andrew Luck has changed over the years).
Pritchard seemed game and answered thoughtfully, fwiw. (Would have been more hilarious if she had asked these type of questions after a loss.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iLuzf5Fmtk
(Yesterday, 11:03 AM)needle Wrote: Louisa Thomas, a writer for The New Yorker (and Mrs. John Urschel, for those who follow every thread here), crashed the Elon post-game press conference.More on Ms. Thomas and Mr. Urschel.
Kind of hilarious to hear her ask about how the tech culture has changed Stanford over the years (in addition to more football-related questions about *checks notes* how Andrew Luck has changed over the years).
Pritchard seemed game and answered thoughtfully, fwiw. (Would have been more hilarious if she had asked these type of questions after a loss.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iLuzf5Fmtk
Yesterday, 03:56 PM
I still think Stanford and Cal should have stayed in the Pac-12. The central argument is that Stanford and Cal had the opportunity to help lead a Western conference rather than become geographically isolated members of an Eastern one.
Looking back at the 2023 decision, and considering the rebuilt Pac-12's eight football programs—Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Utah State, and Texas State—here is the case for staying in the Pac-12 Conference:
1. Geographic proximity: A predominantly Western conference would have dramatically reduced travel distances for student-athletes.
2. Academic performance: Less time traveling across the country would have meant fewer missed classes and less disruption to academic schedules.
3. Student-athlete welfare: Shorter trips, fewer time-zone changes, and more predictable schedules would have improved athletes' physical and mental well-being.
4. Travel expenses: Remaining in the Pac-12 would have avoided much of the substantial increase in travel costs associated with ACC membership.
5. Environmental responsibility: Regional competition would have reduced air travel and the athletic departments' carbon footprints.
6. Financial efficiency: Remaining in the Pac-12 would have avoided the severe initial discounts Stanford and Cal accepted on ACC television distributions.
7. Institutional leadership: Stanford and Cal could have become the two most influential academic institutions in the reconstructed conference.
8. Conference governance: With only ten football-playing members, Stanford and Cal would have exercised substantially greater influence over conference policy.
9. Preservation of tradition: Remaining would have helped preserve more than a century of Pacific Coast athletic identity.
10. Regional rivalries: Regular competition with Oregon State, Washington State, and other Western universities would have strengthened existing athletic relationships.
11. Fan engagement: Regional opponents would have made attending away games more practical and affordable for students, alumni, and supporters.
12. Recruiting advantages: Playing predominantly in Western markets would have reinforced Stanford's and Cal's recruiting relationships with California and other Western states.
13. Competitive balance: Stanford and Cal would have faced a more manageable football competitive environment than the ACC.
14. Conference championships: Both schools would have enjoyed potentially better opportunities to compete for conference football titles.
15. College Football Playoff opportunities: A more attainable conference championship could have provided a credible route into the expanded College Football Playoff.
16. National television exposure: The reconstructed Pac-12 has secured national television coverage through CBS, USA Sports, and The CW, demonstrating that leaving was not the only path to media visibility.
17. Brand leadership: Stanford and Cal could have served as the academic and institutional anchors of a revitalized Western athletic conference.
18. Athletic department stability: A regional conference would have reduced logistical pressures on non-revenue and Olympic sports.
19. Family participation: Parents and families would have found it easier to attend competitions throughout the season.
20. Scheduling flexibility: A smaller Western conference could have offered more flexibility in scheduling nonconference contests against nationally prominent opponents.
21. Athletic department economics: Lower travel and operating costs could have freed resources for coaching, facilities, scholarships, and athlete development.
22. Institutional loyalty: Staying would have demonstrated loyalty to Oregon State and Washington State rather than contributing to the abandonment of two longtime conference partners.
23. Long-term conference stability: Stanford and Cal could have helped establish a financially sustainable Western conference rather than depending on the ACC's continued cohesion.
24. California market strength: The combined presence of Stanford, Cal, Fresno State, and San Diego State would have given the reconstructed Pac-12 a formidable footprint in America's most populous state.
25. Mission alignment: A Western conference would have been more consistent with Stanford's and Cal's stated commitment to balancing academic excellence, athletics, and student-athlete welfare.
One particularly telling piece of hindsight: Cal's athletic travel expenses rose approximately 40% in its first ACC season, while its media-rights revenue fell from $25 million to $11 million—although that does not establish what a rebuilt Pac-12 would have paid.
Looking back at the 2023 decision, and considering the rebuilt Pac-12's eight football programs—Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Utah State, and Texas State—here is the case for staying in the Pac-12 Conference:
1. Geographic proximity: A predominantly Western conference would have dramatically reduced travel distances for student-athletes.
2. Academic performance: Less time traveling across the country would have meant fewer missed classes and less disruption to academic schedules.
3. Student-athlete welfare: Shorter trips, fewer time-zone changes, and more predictable schedules would have improved athletes' physical and mental well-being.
4. Travel expenses: Remaining in the Pac-12 would have avoided much of the substantial increase in travel costs associated with ACC membership.
5. Environmental responsibility: Regional competition would have reduced air travel and the athletic departments' carbon footprints.
6. Financial efficiency: Remaining in the Pac-12 would have avoided the severe initial discounts Stanford and Cal accepted on ACC television distributions.
7. Institutional leadership: Stanford and Cal could have become the two most influential academic institutions in the reconstructed conference.
8. Conference governance: With only ten football-playing members, Stanford and Cal would have exercised substantially greater influence over conference policy.
9. Preservation of tradition: Remaining would have helped preserve more than a century of Pacific Coast athletic identity.
10. Regional rivalries: Regular competition with Oregon State, Washington State, and other Western universities would have strengthened existing athletic relationships.
11. Fan engagement: Regional opponents would have made attending away games more practical and affordable for students, alumni, and supporters.
12. Recruiting advantages: Playing predominantly in Western markets would have reinforced Stanford's and Cal's recruiting relationships with California and other Western states.
13. Competitive balance: Stanford and Cal would have faced a more manageable football competitive environment than the ACC.
14. Conference championships: Both schools would have enjoyed potentially better opportunities to compete for conference football titles.
15. College Football Playoff opportunities: A more attainable conference championship could have provided a credible route into the expanded College Football Playoff.
16. National television exposure: The reconstructed Pac-12 has secured national television coverage through CBS, USA Sports, and The CW, demonstrating that leaving was not the only path to media visibility.
17. Brand leadership: Stanford and Cal could have served as the academic and institutional anchors of a revitalized Western athletic conference.
18. Athletic department stability: A regional conference would have reduced logistical pressures on non-revenue and Olympic sports.
19. Family participation: Parents and families would have found it easier to attend competitions throughout the season.
20. Scheduling flexibility: A smaller Western conference could have offered more flexibility in scheduling nonconference contests against nationally prominent opponents.
21. Athletic department economics: Lower travel and operating costs could have freed resources for coaching, facilities, scholarships, and athlete development.
22. Institutional loyalty: Staying would have demonstrated loyalty to Oregon State and Washington State rather than contributing to the abandonment of two longtime conference partners.
23. Long-term conference stability: Stanford and Cal could have helped establish a financially sustainable Western conference rather than depending on the ACC's continued cohesion.
24. California market strength: The combined presence of Stanford, Cal, Fresno State, and San Diego State would have given the reconstructed Pac-12 a formidable footprint in America's most populous state.
25. Mission alignment: A Western conference would have been more consistent with Stanford's and Cal's stated commitment to balancing academic excellence, athletics, and student-athlete welfare.
One particularly telling piece of hindsight: Cal's athletic travel expenses rose approximately 40% in its first ACC season, while its media-rights revenue fell from $25 million to $11 million—although that does not establish what a rebuilt Pac-12 would have paid.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
I still think Stanford and Cal should have stayed in the Pac-12. The central argument is that Stanford and Cal had the opportunity to help lead a Western conference rather than become geographically isolated members of an Eastern one.
Looking back at the 2023 decision, and considering the rebuilt Pac-12's eight football programs—Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Utah State, and Texas State—here is the case for staying in the Pac-12 Conference:
1. Geographic proximity: A predominantly Western conference would have dramatically reduced travel distances for student-athletes.
2. Academic performance: Less time traveling across the country would have meant fewer missed classes and less disruption to academic schedules.
3. Student-athlete welfare: Shorter trips, fewer time-zone changes, and more predictable schedules would have improved athletes' physical and mental well-being.
4. Travel expenses: Remaining in the Pac-12 would have avoided much of the substantial increase in travel costs associated with ACC membership.
5. Environmental responsibility: Regional competition would have reduced air travel and the athletic departments' carbon footprints.
6. Financial efficiency: Remaining in the Pac-12 would have avoided the severe initial discounts Stanford and Cal accepted on ACC television distributions.
7. Institutional leadership: Stanford and Cal could have become the two most influential academic institutions in the reconstructed conference.
8. Conference governance: With only ten football-playing members, Stanford and Cal would have exercised substantially greater influence over conference policy.
9. Preservation of tradition: Remaining would have helped preserve more than a century of Pacific Coast athletic identity.
10. Regional rivalries: Regular competition with Oregon State, Washington State, and other Western universities would have strengthened existing athletic relationships.
11. Fan engagement: Regional opponents would have made attending away games more practical and affordable for students, alumni, and supporters.
12. Recruiting advantages: Playing predominantly in Western markets would have reinforced Stanford's and Cal's recruiting relationships with California and other Western states.
13. Competitive balance: Stanford and Cal would have faced a more manageable football competitive environment than the ACC.
14. Conference championships: Both schools would have enjoyed potentially better opportunities to compete for conference football titles.
15. College Football Playoff opportunities: A more attainable conference championship could have provided a credible route into the expanded College Football Playoff.
16. National television exposure: The reconstructed Pac-12 has secured national television coverage through CBS, USA Sports, and The CW, demonstrating that leaving was not the only path to media visibility.
17. Brand leadership: Stanford and Cal could have served as the academic and institutional anchors of a revitalized Western athletic conference.
18. Athletic department stability: A regional conference would have reduced logistical pressures on non-revenue and Olympic sports.
19. Family participation: Parents and families would have found it easier to attend competitions throughout the season.
20. Scheduling flexibility: A smaller Western conference could have offered more flexibility in scheduling nonconference contests against nationally prominent opponents.
21. Athletic department economics: Lower travel and operating costs could have freed resources for coaching, facilities, scholarships, and athlete development.
22. Institutional loyalty: Staying would have demonstrated loyalty to Oregon State and Washington State rather than contributing to the abandonment of two longtime conference partners.
23. Long-term conference stability: Stanford and Cal could have helped establish a financially sustainable Western conference rather than depending on the ACC's continued cohesion.
24. California market strength: The combined presence of Stanford, Cal, Fresno State, and San Diego State would have given the reconstructed Pac-12 a formidable footprint in America's most populous state.
25. Mission alignment: A Western conference would have been more consistent with Stanford's and Cal's stated commitment to balancing academic excellence, athletics, and student-athlete welfare.
One particularly telling piece of hindsight: Cal's athletic travel expenses rose approximately 40% in its first ACC season, while its media-rights revenue fell from $25 million to $11 million—although that does not establish what a rebuilt Pac-12 would have paid.
Looking back at the 2023 decision, and considering the rebuilt Pac-12's eight football programs—Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Utah State, and Texas State—here is the case for staying in the Pac-12 Conference:
1. Geographic proximity: A predominantly Western conference would have dramatically reduced travel distances for student-athletes.
2. Academic performance: Less time traveling across the country would have meant fewer missed classes and less disruption to academic schedules.
3. Student-athlete welfare: Shorter trips, fewer time-zone changes, and more predictable schedules would have improved athletes' physical and mental well-being.
4. Travel expenses: Remaining in the Pac-12 would have avoided much of the substantial increase in travel costs associated with ACC membership.
5. Environmental responsibility: Regional competition would have reduced air travel and the athletic departments' carbon footprints.
6. Financial efficiency: Remaining in the Pac-12 would have avoided the severe initial discounts Stanford and Cal accepted on ACC television distributions.
7. Institutional leadership: Stanford and Cal could have become the two most influential academic institutions in the reconstructed conference.
8. Conference governance: With only ten football-playing members, Stanford and Cal would have exercised substantially greater influence over conference policy.
9. Preservation of tradition: Remaining would have helped preserve more than a century of Pacific Coast athletic identity.
10. Regional rivalries: Regular competition with Oregon State, Washington State, and other Western universities would have strengthened existing athletic relationships.
11. Fan engagement: Regional opponents would have made attending away games more practical and affordable for students, alumni, and supporters.
12. Recruiting advantages: Playing predominantly in Western markets would have reinforced Stanford's and Cal's recruiting relationships with California and other Western states.
13. Competitive balance: Stanford and Cal would have faced a more manageable football competitive environment than the ACC.
14. Conference championships: Both schools would have enjoyed potentially better opportunities to compete for conference football titles.
15. College Football Playoff opportunities: A more attainable conference championship could have provided a credible route into the expanded College Football Playoff.
16. National television exposure: The reconstructed Pac-12 has secured national television coverage through CBS, USA Sports, and The CW, demonstrating that leaving was not the only path to media visibility.
17. Brand leadership: Stanford and Cal could have served as the academic and institutional anchors of a revitalized Western athletic conference.
18. Athletic department stability: A regional conference would have reduced logistical pressures on non-revenue and Olympic sports.
19. Family participation: Parents and families would have found it easier to attend competitions throughout the season.
20. Scheduling flexibility: A smaller Western conference could have offered more flexibility in scheduling nonconference contests against nationally prominent opponents.
21. Athletic department economics: Lower travel and operating costs could have freed resources for coaching, facilities, scholarships, and athlete development.
22. Institutional loyalty: Staying would have demonstrated loyalty to Oregon State and Washington State rather than contributing to the abandonment of two longtime conference partners.
23. Long-term conference stability: Stanford and Cal could have helped establish a financially sustainable Western conference rather than depending on the ACC's continued cohesion.
24. California market strength: The combined presence of Stanford, Cal, Fresno State, and San Diego State would have given the reconstructed Pac-12 a formidable footprint in America's most populous state.
25. Mission alignment: A Western conference would have been more consistent with Stanford's and Cal's stated commitment to balancing academic excellence, athletics, and student-athlete welfare.
One particularly telling piece of hindsight: Cal's athletic travel expenses rose approximately 40% in its first ACC season, while its media-rights revenue fell from $25 million to $11 million—although that does not establish what a rebuilt Pac-12 would have paid.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Yesterday, 04:26 PM
Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
Yesterday, 04:42 PM
(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
Same
(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
Same
Yesterday, 05:01 PM
I think it is time to separate football conferences from conferences for other sports.
BC
BC
I think it is time to separate football conferences from conferences for other sports.
BC
BC
Yesterday, 05:03 PM
(Yesterday, 05:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is time to separate football conferences from conferences for other sports.
BC
Not happening in the SEC or the Big10. Too much brand equity, even for the non football sports.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(Yesterday, 04:42 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
Same
I'm also not sure that we'd have any bigger crowds at football games if we joined the Pac-12 as the new Pac-12 has some of the same issues drawing crowds that we have with the ACC, most Stanford fans won't really care about any of the conference members (either in the ACC or the Pac-12) other than Cal (assuming Cal came along), look no further than past attendance for WSU and OSU games when we were all in the Pac-12, maybe there are more visiting fans who show up from either Fresno State or San Diego State when we would play them, but the others are not likely to have either large numbers of alumni in the Bay Area or travel well for games here.
(Yesterday, 05:03 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(Yesterday, 05:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is time to separate football conferences from conferences for other sports.
BC
Not happening in the SEC or the Big10. Too much brand equity, even for the non football sports.
agreed, there is less geographic benefit to them of any split, the SEC is not all that big of a geo area, and the Big 10 isn't if you care less about the four west coast schools (and I guess also Nebraska) which the Big 10 appears to do to some extent already
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(Yesterday, 04:42 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
Same
I'm also not sure that we'd have any bigger crowds at football games if we joined the Pac-12 as the new Pac-12 has some of the same issues drawing crowds that we have with the ACC, most Stanford fans won't really care about any of the conference members (either in the ACC or the Pac-12) other than Cal (assuming Cal came along), look no further than past attendance for WSU and OSU games when we were all in the Pac-12, maybe there are more visiting fans who show up from either Fresno State or San Diego State when we would play them, but the others are not likely to have either large numbers of alumni in the Bay Area or travel well for games here.
(Yesterday, 05:03 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(Yesterday, 05:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is time to separate football conferences from conferences for other sports.
BC
Not happening in the SEC or the Big10. Too much brand equity, even for the non football sports.
agreed, there is less geographic benefit to them of any split, the SEC is not all that big of a geo area, and the Big 10 isn't if you care less about the four west coast schools (and I guess also Nebraska) which the Big 10 appears to do to some extent already
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Yesterday, 07:58 PM
(Yesterday, 05:05 PM)82lsju Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:42 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
Same
I'm also not sure that we'd have any bigger crowds at football games if we joined the Pac-12 as the new Pac-12 has some of the same issues drawing crowds that we have with the ACC, most Stanford fans won't really care about any of the conference members (either in the ACC or the Pac-12) other than Cal (assuming Cal came along), look no further than past attendance for WSU and OSU games when we were all in the Pac-12, maybe there are more visiting fans who show up from either Fresno State or San Diego State when we would play them, but the others are not likely to have either large numbers of alumni in the Bay Area or travel well for games here.
(Yesterday, 05:03 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(Yesterday, 05:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is time to separate football conferences from conferences for other sports.
BC
Not happening in the SEC or the Big10. Too much brand equity, even for the non football sports.
agreed, there is less geographic benefit to them of any split, the SEC is not all that big of a geo area, and the Big 10 isn't if you care less about the four west coast schools (and I guess also Nebraska) which the Big 10 appears to do to some extent already
Maybe. Last year's San Jose State game (26,357) drew about the same as Florida State (26,470) and Notre Dame (27.456), theoretically a much more attractive draw. And it wasn't a league game. A home game against Pitt last year drew only 16,540. And home games against Hawaii drew 23,222 and Georgia Tech drew 23,455 essentially the same. And again....they weren't even league games.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(Yesterday, 05:05 PM)82lsju Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:42 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
Same
I'm also not sure that we'd have any bigger crowds at football games if we joined the Pac-12 as the new Pac-12 has some of the same issues drawing crowds that we have with the ACC, most Stanford fans won't really care about any of the conference members (either in the ACC or the Pac-12) other than Cal (assuming Cal came along), look no further than past attendance for WSU and OSU games when we were all in the Pac-12, maybe there are more visiting fans who show up from either Fresno State or San Diego State when we would play them, but the others are not likely to have either large numbers of alumni in the Bay Area or travel well for games here.
(Yesterday, 05:03 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(Yesterday, 05:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is time to separate football conferences from conferences for other sports.
BC
Not happening in the SEC or the Big10. Too much brand equity, even for the non football sports.
agreed, there is less geographic benefit to them of any split, the SEC is not all that big of a geo area, and the Big 10 isn't if you care less about the four west coast schools (and I guess also Nebraska) which the Big 10 appears to do to some extent already
Maybe. Last year's San Jose State game (26,357) drew about the same as Florida State (26,470) and Notre Dame (27.456), theoretically a much more attractive draw. And it wasn't a league game. A home game against Pitt last year drew only 16,540. And home games against Hawaii drew 23,222 and Georgia Tech drew 23,455 essentially the same. And again....they weren't even league games.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Yesterday, 09:10 PM
(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.Yes
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
While a reasonable argument for Pac-12 for football, would have been kiss of death for most other sports.
(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.Yes
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
While a reasonable argument for Pac-12 for football, would have been kiss of death for most other sports.
(Yesterday, 07:58 PM)Mick Wrote:(Yesterday, 05:05 PM)82lsju Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:42 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
Same
I'm also not sure that we'd have any bigger crowds at football games if we joined the Pac-12 as the new Pac-12 has some of the same issues drawing crowds that we have with the ACC, most Stanford fans won't really care about any of the conference members (either in the ACC or the Pac-12) other than Cal (assuming Cal came along), look no further than past attendance for WSU and OSU games when we were all in the Pac-12, maybe there are more visiting fans who show up from either Fresno State or San Diego State when we would play them, but the others are not likely to have either large numbers of alumni in the Bay Area or travel well for games here.
(Yesterday, 05:03 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(Yesterday, 05:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is time to separate football conferences from conferences for other sports.
BC
Not happening in the SEC or the Big10. Too much brand equity, even for the non football sports.
agreed, there is less geographic benefit to them of any split, the SEC is not all that big of a geo area, and the Big 10 isn't if you care less about the four west coast schools (and I guess also Nebraska) which the Big 10 appears to do to some extent already
Maybe. Last year's San Jose State game (26,357) drew about the same as Florida State (26,470) and Notre Dame (27.456), theoretically a much more attractive draw. And it wasn't a league game. A home game against Pitt last year drew only 16,540. And home games against Hawaii drew 23,222 and Georgia Tech drew 23,455 essentially the same. And again....they weren't even league games.
maybe, those are tickets sold not people in the stands, which lately have been a lot less than tickets sold, when your home slate is some combo of OSU, WSU, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Texas State, Boise State, and Utah State I would expect sold tickets (especially season tickets) to drop. I've had regular season tickets since 1982 and right now I mostly go to the games for the social aspects around our tailgater, and that group is right now at about the minimum to have a functioning tailgater. I can see me dropping my tickets in the next 1-5 years, I'll keep them next year since it's my 45th reunion, we'll see what happens after that. And I agree with what others have posted about the other sports, I don't think they survive as we know then today if they move to the Pac-12, and that would be sad.
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(Yesterday, 07:58 PM)Mick Wrote:(Yesterday, 05:05 PM)82lsju Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:42 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
Same
I'm also not sure that we'd have any bigger crowds at football games if we joined the Pac-12 as the new Pac-12 has some of the same issues drawing crowds that we have with the ACC, most Stanford fans won't really care about any of the conference members (either in the ACC or the Pac-12) other than Cal (assuming Cal came along), look no further than past attendance for WSU and OSU games when we were all in the Pac-12, maybe there are more visiting fans who show up from either Fresno State or San Diego State when we would play them, but the others are not likely to have either large numbers of alumni in the Bay Area or travel well for games here.
(Yesterday, 05:03 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(Yesterday, 05:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is time to separate football conferences from conferences for other sports.
BC
Not happening in the SEC or the Big10. Too much brand equity, even for the non football sports.
agreed, there is less geographic benefit to them of any split, the SEC is not all that big of a geo area, and the Big 10 isn't if you care less about the four west coast schools (and I guess also Nebraska) which the Big 10 appears to do to some extent already
Maybe. Last year's San Jose State game (26,357) drew about the same as Florida State (26,470) and Notre Dame (27.456), theoretically a much more attractive draw. And it wasn't a league game. A home game against Pitt last year drew only 16,540. And home games against Hawaii drew 23,222 and Georgia Tech drew 23,455 essentially the same. And again....they weren't even league games.
maybe, those are tickets sold not people in the stands, which lately have been a lot less than tickets sold, when your home slate is some combo of OSU, WSU, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Texas State, Boise State, and Utah State I would expect sold tickets (especially season tickets) to drop. I've had regular season tickets since 1982 and right now I mostly go to the games for the social aspects around our tailgater, and that group is right now at about the minimum to have a functioning tailgater. I can see me dropping my tickets in the next 1-5 years, I'll keep them next year since it's my 45th reunion, we'll see what happens after that. And I agree with what others have posted about the other sports, I don't think they survive as we know then today if they move to the Pac-12, and that would be sad.
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
9 hours ago
(Today, 09:36 AM)82lsju Wrote:Do you think more people show up if we go 9-3 and to a decent bowl game?(Yesterday, 07:58 PM)Mick Wrote:(Yesterday, 05:05 PM)82lsju Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:42 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
Same
I'm also not sure that we'd have any bigger crowds at football games if we joined the Pac-12 as the new Pac-12 has some of the same issues drawing crowds that we have with the ACC, most Stanford fans won't really care about any of the conference members (either in the ACC or the Pac-12) other than Cal (assuming Cal came along), look no further than past attendance for WSU and OSU games when we were all in the Pac-12, maybe there are more visiting fans who show up from either Fresno State or San Diego State when we would play them, but the others are not likely to have either large numbers of alumni in the Bay Area or travel well for games here.
(Yesterday, 05:03 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(Yesterday, 05:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is time to separate football conferences from conferences for other sports.
BC
Not happening in the SEC or the Big10. Too much brand equity, even for the non football sports.
agreed, there is less geographic benefit to them of any split, the SEC is not all that big of a geo area, and the Big 10 isn't if you care less about the four west coast schools (and I guess also Nebraska) which the Big 10 appears to do to some extent already
Maybe. Last year's San Jose State game (26,357) drew about the same as Florida State (26,470) and Notre Dame (27.456), theoretically a much more attractive draw. And it wasn't a league game. A home game against Pitt last year drew only 16,540. And home games against Hawaii drew 23,222 and Georgia Tech drew 23,455 essentially the same. And again....they weren't even league games.
maybe, those are tickets sold not people in the stands, which lately have been a lot less than tickets sold, when your home slate is some combo of OSU, WSU, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Texas State, Boise State, and Utah State I would expect sold tickets (especially season tickets) to drop. I've had regular season tickets since 1982 and right now I mostly go to the games for the social aspects around our tailgater, and that group is right now at about the minimum to have a functioning tailgater. I can see me dropping my tickets in the next 1-5 years, I'll keep them next year since it's my 45th reunion, we'll see what happens after that. And I agree with what others have posted about the other sports, I don't think they survive as we know then today if they move to the Pac-12, and that would be sad.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(Today, 09:36 AM)82lsju Wrote:Do you think more people show up if we go 9-3 and to a decent bowl game?(Yesterday, 07:58 PM)Mick Wrote:(Yesterday, 05:05 PM)82lsju Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:42 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(Yesterday, 04:26 PM)KartyFan Wrote: Mick, I don't think your stance is unreasonable. From a football-only perspective, I understand the argument that we are set up to fail and are better off being a big (?) fish in a small pond.
I do believe staying in the Pac-12 would have meant national irrelevance for virtually all sports. I don't see us having a strong men's soccer team when only three of the full Pac-12 members have a team. And I'm not quite ready to give up on Stanford being an all-around athletic powerhouse just yet.
Same
I'm also not sure that we'd have any bigger crowds at football games if we joined the Pac-12 as the new Pac-12 has some of the same issues drawing crowds that we have with the ACC, most Stanford fans won't really care about any of the conference members (either in the ACC or the Pac-12) other than Cal (assuming Cal came along), look no further than past attendance for WSU and OSU games when we were all in the Pac-12, maybe there are more visiting fans who show up from either Fresno State or San Diego State when we would play them, but the others are not likely to have either large numbers of alumni in the Bay Area or travel well for games here.
(Yesterday, 05:03 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(Yesterday, 05:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I think it is time to separate football conferences from conferences for other sports.
BC
Not happening in the SEC or the Big10. Too much brand equity, even for the non football sports.
agreed, there is less geographic benefit to them of any split, the SEC is not all that big of a geo area, and the Big 10 isn't if you care less about the four west coast schools (and I guess also Nebraska) which the Big 10 appears to do to some extent already
Maybe. Last year's San Jose State game (26,357) drew about the same as Florida State (26,470) and Notre Dame (27.456), theoretically a much more attractive draw. And it wasn't a league game. A home game against Pitt last year drew only 16,540. And home games against Hawaii drew 23,222 and Georgia Tech drew 23,455 essentially the same. And again....they weren't even league games.
maybe, those are tickets sold not people in the stands, which lately have been a lot less than tickets sold, when your home slate is some combo of OSU, WSU, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Texas State, Boise State, and Utah State I would expect sold tickets (especially season tickets) to drop. I've had regular season tickets since 1982 and right now I mostly go to the games for the social aspects around our tailgater, and that group is right now at about the minimum to have a functioning tailgater. I can see me dropping my tickets in the next 1-5 years, I'll keep them next year since it's my 45th reunion, we'll see what happens after that. And I agree with what others have posted about the other sports, I don't think they survive as we know then today if they move to the Pac-12, and that would be sad.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »