End of Pac12? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: End of Pac12? (/thread-23271.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: End of Pac12? (/thread-23271.html)
RE: End of Pac12? - TonyLima - 07-03-2022
(07-02-2022, 11:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote:Quote: Pac-12 mailbag: Kliavkoff’s culpability, expansion options, WSU’s connections and more
July 2, 2022 at 11:56 am Updated July 2, 2022 at 11:58 am
Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff speaks during Pac-12 Conference NCAA college basketball media day in October of 2021 in San Francisco. (Jeff Chiu / AP)
Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff speaks during Pac-12 Conference NCAA college... (Jeff Chiu / AP)More
Skip Ad
Jon Wilner By Jon Wilner
Bay Area News Group
He cuts deeply, but he is right.
BC
Ahem. For years (at least on the Bootleg) I’ve bitched about the Pac-nn network strategy. I have steadfastly refused to pay Comcast for a bunch of junk I’ll never watch. I asked for streaming options, among many other ideas. Deaf ears. Chickens, home, roost, etc. Larry was and is an idiot.
RE: End of Pac12? - Giants - 07-03-2022
(07-03-2022, 10:20 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:(07-03-2022, 09:35 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(07-03-2022, 09:00 AM)needle Wrote: How far fetched is it that the PAC gets a Billionaire (Bezos) Bailout, by which I mean that Amazon Prime pays for 5-10 years of PAC-10 media rights at 4x or 5x of market value?
That’s probably the only type of thing that would save the conference. I would not dismiss it outright.
The Pac-10 by Nike, available on Amazon Prime. Hmmmm. . . .
At least more people could get it than they do now
The “pacific” is not a selling point. Make it more inclusive of other regions. The Nike-10 by Amazon or the Amazon-10 by Nike (depending on which pays more).
Close…
The surviving serious football playing schools will play in either the the ESPN/SEC conference or the FOX/Big10 conference. The rest of the college football playing schools will play in the Many Nondescript Channel/Teeming Masses Conference.
RE: End of Pac12? - Maple Leaf - 07-03-2022
(07-03-2022, 01:13 PM)Giants Wrote:(07-03-2022, 10:20 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:(07-03-2022, 09:35 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(07-03-2022, 09:00 AM)needle Wrote: How far fetched is it that the PAC gets a Billionaire (Bezos) Bailout, by which I mean that Amazon Prime pays for 5-10 years of PAC-10 media rights at 4x or 5x of market value?
That’s probably the only type of thing that would save the conference. I would not dismiss it outright.
The Pac-10 by Nike, available on Amazon Prime. Hmmmm. . . .
At least more people could get it than they do now
The “pacific” is not a selling point. Make it more inclusive of other regions. The Nike-10 by Amazon or the Amazon-10 by Nike (depending on which pays more).
Close…
The surviving serious football playing schools will play in either the the ESPN/SEC conference or the FOX/Big10 conference. The rest of the college football playing schools will play in the Many Nondescript Channel/Teeming Masses Conference.
Gee what would happen if someone(s) HACKED either/or both ESPN and FOX support IT Systems with a certain degree of "appropriate timing" and the only secured support IT Systems for sports seemed to be those belonging to the Pac 10? Where would advertisers spend their $$$?
RE: End of Pac12? - Phogge - 07-03-2022
I gave up grief about ten minutes after my last semipro game at age 36.
Grief is for loss of friends and loved ones, for people with a hard life, for oppressed people here and abroad and for other personal and societal reasons.
Grief over losing football at Stanford... come on.
RE: End of Pac12? - ADPinWDC - 07-03-2022
(07-01-2022, 04:37 PM)paloalto Wrote: Pac-12 schools “reportedly have issues with some of the Texas schools”
I suspect UC regents would not allow Cal to play in the same conference as Baylor and TCU.
Right... Cal does not want to be near a baptismal font at the Baylor stadium,
nor with the Disciples of Christ Bible Thumpers in Fort Worth at TCU.
Imagine how the Baylor Bears and Horned Frogs feel going to a Well of Satanic Souls near Sather Gate?
RE: End of Pac12? - Phogge - 07-03-2022
Not to mention hordes of Darwin worshippers on both campuses.
RE: End of Pac12? - Mudhead - 07-03-2022
(07-02-2022, 05:56 PM)Phogge Wrote: Apparently "religious tolerance" is selective.
I agree with what I take as the tenor of your comment. I find it hard to believe that Stanford is so narrow minded that it would not be in a conference with “religious” schools. I recognize that we’ve become more than a tad parochial in NorCal But I don’t think we’ve gone to outright bigotry.
RE: End of Pac12? - Giants - 07-03-2022
Someone at the Cal website nailed…
The Arizona’s, UT and Colorado move to the B12, UW and Oregon go to the B10, Oregon State and WSU move to the Mountain West leaving the 2PAC, Stanford in the South Division and Cal in the North. They play ten times each fall with the series winner receiving the Axe (I guess a tie would necessitate an eleventh game at Hayward High School).
Seriously, I think the people over there are quite delusional………
RE: End of Pac12? - Softball Fan - 07-03-2022
https://graphics.wsj.com/table/pac12rank_1010
Do those conference win percentages look correct?
RE: End of Pac12? - DocSavage87 - 07-03-2022
mgoblog rumor from "sources" that were out front of USC/UCLA to B1G:
ND / Stanford will bring B1G to 18 teams
RE: End of Pac12? - Canalejas - 07-03-2022
Darwin worshippers?
RE: End of Pac12? - JJJ - 07-03-2022
I just removed the sports package from my Sling account, thereby dropping Pac-12 Networks and a few other things I don't watch. Just in case anyone needed a little reminder. It will be added again in time for the first football game to be aired there, but how many more times will that happen?
RE: End of Pac12? - Phogge - 07-03-2022
(07-03-2022, 08:41 PM)Canalejas Wrote: Darwin worshippers?
Fundamentalists vs evolution.
RE: End of Pac12? - BostonCard - 07-03-2022
(07-03-2022, 07:43 PM)DocSavage87 Wrote: mgoblog rumor from "sources" that were out front of USC/UCLA to B1G:
ND / Stanford will bring B1G to 18 teams
I would be surprised. Then again, I was surprised that USC and UCLA bolted.
BC
BTW, here’s the math of USC/UCLA and what it would be for Oregon/Washington:
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-gut-punch-comes-with
Quote:The 14 existing conference members know they’ll receive approximately $71.4 million per university under the new Fox deal. Adding two more partners only made sense if they could generate a minimum of $143 million in additional distributable revenue.
UCLA and USC could deliver that. On the other hand, Oregon/Washington can’t:
Quote:However, Thompson estimated that those two Pac-12 universities, along with the Oregon and Washington television markets, would only generate an additional $60 million in combined additional revenues.
I’m surprised it is that low, and I expect Stanford can deliver even less than that. We are not going to be candidates for the BIG-whatever.
BC
RE: End of Pac12? - grendalor - 07-04-2022
(07-03-2022, 10:55 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We are not going to be candidates for the BIG-whatever.
BC
Generally I agree. The only thing that gives me slight pause is the idea that Stanford joining seals the deal with ND to join. Clearly the B1G wants ND, that is now openly reported. It's also known that ND has quite the payout to make to the ACC if they were to join the B1G. So perhaps Stanford joining the B1G with ND would be enough to sweeten the deal for ND to get them to agree to join?
I think that's also far-fetched, frankly, because the value we really added to ND -- apart from the amorphous prestige matchup value which wasn't valueless for them but certainly is more of a backseat issue in 2022 where it's more than ever just about $$$ -- was the ability to be physically present on the West Coast every single year for recruiting benefit. With both UCLA and USC joining the B1G, ND could be able to finagle that if they insisted on playing one of those teams in Cali every year, even though they have no rivalry with UCLA currently. And so it seems like we bring much less to the table for ND, apart from the academic prestige, which is less important in the current environment of how CFB is quickly transforming. And the decline in the quality of our football performance doesn't help the equation, either, I would think -- ND doesn't like when we are so good that it is really hard for them to beat us, but they also don't like it when we are so bad that it is too easy -- they want us to be a consistent 5-8 win team that is consistently beatable for them while not being a joke opponent -- they have dropped rivalry series with other very long rivals for performance decline issues in the past as well (see -- Michigan).
RE: End of Pac12? - BostonCard - 07-04-2022
I’m not sure why Notre Dame should give much more of an iota of thought for whether Stanford is or is not in the conference.
Like everyone in this sordid affair, their calcula will be driven almost entirely by money, and Stanford’s existence doesn’t factor into that.
BC
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-04-2022
(07-04-2022, 05:57 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I’m not sure why Notre Dame should give much more of an iota of thought for whether Stanford is or is not in the conference.
Like everyone in this sordid affair, their calcula will be driven almost entirely by money, and Stanford’s existence doesn’t factor into that.
BC
I can see a very real possibility that Stanford and Notre Dame would be more inclined to join the Big Ten if the other does.
Stanford could follow Notre Dame because that cements the fact being independent is not a real option, and it would be clear to Stanford if it had any desire to stay relevant in college sports it would have to join the big leagues.
Notre Dame would follow Stanford because Stanford would be the premier athletic and academic institution being OK with joining a conference outside its traditional footprint to stay relevant in major college sports.
I honestly can't believe how nobody on this board or any reporter for the premium Stanford sports sites has any clue what Stanford's thinking is on the Big Ten issue. Speculation here ranges from go to Ivy model, to expand the Pac, to go independent. Nobody seems to have any clue what Stanford is thinking or even how it values money from media rights vs. other considerations.
RE: End of Pac12? - 81alum - 07-04-2022
(07-04-2022, 06:49 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:I don't know what the Stanford administration is thinking, but I do think we have some clues based on past history.(07-04-2022, 05:57 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I’m not sure why Notre Dame should give much more of an iota of thought for whether Stanford is or is not in the conference.
Like everyone in this sordid affair, their calcula will be driven almost entirely by money, and Stanford’s existence doesn’t factor into that.
BC
I can see a very real possibility that Stanford and Notre Dame would be more inclined to join the Big Ten if the other does.
Stanford could follow Notre Dame because that cements the fact being independent is not a real option, and it would be clear to Stanford if it had any desire to stay relevant in college sports it would have to join the big leagues.
Notre Dame would follow Stanford because Stanford would be the premier athletic and academic institution being OK with joining a conference outside its traditional footprint to stay relevant in major college sports.
I honestly can't believe how nobody on this board or any reporter for the premium Stanford sports sites has any clue what Stanford's thinking is on the Big Ten issue. Speculation here ranges from go to Ivy model, to expand the Pac, to go independent. Nobody seems to have any clue what Stanford is thinking or even how it values money from media rights vs. other considerations.
1) Stanford was once the school that was willing to enforce strict admissions criteria on its athletes even at the expense of success in football.
2) Stanford was once the school that was willing to cut numerous sports ostensibly for budget reasons but more probably because the percentage of student athletes was--in the minds of administration and faculty--excessive compared with the relatively small undergraduate student body.
3) Stanford feels far, far more connected to schools like the Ivies, MIT, CalTech and U Chicago than it does to most of the other schools of the Pac 12/10, which (other than Cal) never had much in common with Stanford's mission as an elite university.
In my mind, Stanford athletics reached a zenith when a rare combination came along of a supportive Admissions director (after 2005), competent Athletics Director (before 2012), a couple of football coaches who fit in their own ways within the unique Stanford culture (after 2007,) and an avid donor with very deep pockets who endowed pretty much every coaching job at the university (2006-2013 were Arillaga's biggest gifts.) The identity and mission of the university was never going to deeply embrace athletics, but so long as athletics could pay for itself and have such splendid success the apathy abated and the intellectual crowd tolerated (and even enjoyed) the sideshow of sports. But this should never have concealed the fact that the culture was never, ever, going to be able to make the least sacrifice to the Stanford image as an ethical, elite, academic institution.
With the latest developments--too numerous but all discussed at length on this board--I have a hard time imagining a way forward that will preserve the wonderful success we had with our athletics program over the last couple of decades. External forces seem arrayed against our unique model. But we also lack the internal leadership that we had at the beginning of this heyday. I will hope that something gets worked out, since I want to enjoy the next couple of decades of retired life watching Stanford athletics flourish. But I think I know the Stanford culture quite well, and it leaves me less and less optimistic. I will be ecstatic to be wrong.
RE: End of Pac12? - Goose - 07-04-2022
(07-04-2022, 07:25 AM)81alum Wrote: I don't know what the Stanford administration is thinking, but I do think we have some clues based on past history.I basically agree with you. However, IMHO the Stanford you describe above may have drifted more than a bit from where it was in say 2000. Its academic identity seems to not be what it was "back in the day" and of less importance. The Presidents office hasn't exactly been a shining light of leadership under MTL and IMHO under Hennessy Stanford was more a corporation than a University. For that reason, past history may not be much of a guide. I worry that the leadership thinks not at all about this "problem".
1) Stanford was once the school that was willing to enforce strict admissions criteria on its athletes even at the expense of success in football.
2) Stanford was once the school that was willing to cut numerous sports ostensibly for budget reasons but more probably because the percentage of student athletes was--in the minds of administration and faculty--excessive compared with the relatively small undergraduate student body.
3) Stanford feels far, far more connected to schools like the Ivies, MIT, CalTech and U Chicago than it does to most of the other schools of the Pac 12/10, which (other than Cal) never had much in common with Stanford's mission as an elite university.
In my mind, Stanford athletics reached a zenith when a rare combination came along of a supportive Admissions director (after 2005), competent Athletics Director (before 2012), a couple of football coaches who fit in their own ways within the unique Stanford culture (after 2007,) and an avid donor with very deep pockets who endowed pretty much every coaching job at the university (2006-2013 were Arillaga's biggest gifts.) The identity and mission of the university was never going to deeply embrace athletics, but so long as athletics could pay for itself and have such splendid success the apathy abated and the intellectual crowd tolerated (and even enjoyed) the sideshow of sports. But this should never have concealed the fact that the culture was never, ever, going to be able to make the least sacrifice to the Stanford image as an ethical, elite, academic institution.
With the latest developments--too numerous but all discussed at length on this board--I have a hard time imagining a way forward that will preserve the wonderful success we had with our athletics program over the last couple of decades. External forces seem arrayed against our unique model. But we also lack the internal leadership that we had at the beginning of this heyday. I will hope that something gets worked out, since I want to enjoy the next couple of decades of retired life watching Stanford athletics flourish. But I think I know the Stanford culture quite well, and it leaves me less and less optimistic. I will be ecstatic to be wrong.
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-04-2022
The worst case Pac-12 scenario is unfolding. The Big XII is looking to add Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and ASU this week apparently.
That will leave Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State in the Pac. Not sustainable, and not worth expanding either.
Oregon State and Washington State have no value for the Big Ten, but they will for the Mountain West, so they likely end up there, devastated at no longer being in major college sports.
That leaves Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington ripe for the Big Ten, and would make USCLA quite happy.
The guy who produced the video I posted theorizes the Big Ten will take UW, Cal, Stanford, Notre Dame or Oregon. I don't know why the B1G wouldn't take all five.
Stanford doesn't need to compete with the same win at all costs mentality as its super conference peers to be guaranteed a bunch of revenue. Rich people are rich because they get others to pay them. Nobody knows how to get paid more than Stanford.