Thanks Larry! - Printable Version

Thanks Larry! - 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: Thanks Larry! (/thread-22801.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: Thanks Larry! - 82lsju - 01-04-2022

(01-04-2022, 01:49 PM)Canalejas Wrote: If we want to make things easier on ourselves and get a little more schedule flexibility I'd rather give up the ND game than either of the LA schools. But that's just me. Cal, UCLA, and USC are the first through third reasons for me to care about Stanford football.

and USC and UCLA could be non-conference games in the years they are not on our Pac-12 schedule....

RE: Thanks Larry! - Canalejas - 01-04-2022

(01-04-2022, 02:28 PM)82lsju Wrote:
(01-04-2022, 01:49 PM)Canalejas Wrote: If we want to make things easier on ourselves and get a little more schedule flexibility I'd rather give up the ND game than either of the LA schools. But that's just me. Cal, UCLA, and USC are the first through third reasons for me to care about Stanford football.

and USC and UCLA could be non-conference games in the years they are not on our Pac-12 schedule....

That could work. And if I remember correctly, that’s what some of the North Carolina schools do when they’re not on each other’s conference schedules.

RE: Thanks Larry! - 82lsju - 01-04-2022

(01-04-2022, 02:38 PM)Canalejas Wrote:
(01-04-2022, 02:28 PM)82lsju Wrote:
(01-04-2022, 01:49 PM)Canalejas Wrote: If we want to make things easier on ourselves and get a little more schedule flexibility I'd rather give up the ND game than either of the LA schools. But that's just me. Cal, UCLA, and USC are the first through third reasons for me to care about Stanford football.

and USC and UCLA could be non-conference games in the years they are not on our Pac-12 schedule....

That could work. And if I remember correctly, that’s what some of the North Carolina schools do when they’re not on each other’s conference schedules.

and the baseball team has done with Cal

RE: Thanks Larry! - SamuelMcF - 01-04-2022

(01-04-2022, 01:49 PM)Canalejas Wrote: If we want to make things easier on ourselves and get a little more schedule flexibility I'd rather give up the ND game than either of the LA schools. But that's just me. Cal, UCLA, and USC are the first through third reasons for me to care about Stanford football.

The ND series ends in 2024 and has not been extended. It looks like we're essentially replacing it with BYU (6 games in the following 10 seasons), though we actually play both next season and the possibility remains we could still extend with ND in addition. I believe we absolutely shouldn't.

RE: Thanks Larry! - OutsiderFan - 01-05-2022

To me, the ideal schedule for Stanford is:

- 8 conference games with one annual south foe
- Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Cal + USC every year (for Cal it would be UCLA every year)
- Then annual rotation with two other South teams
- Keep Notre Dame
- One FCS (like the SEC does)
- Get Rice on the schedule annually
- Rotate between Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Wake Forest for the 12th game

I can sort of understand getting BYU to replace Notre Dame because Stanford rarely gets recruits from Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio, though a few from Indiana do make their way to Stanford, but beating BYU doesn't have nearly the value as beating Notre Dame.

RE: lex24 - Beeg_Dawg - 01-05-2022

(01-04-2022, 01:10 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(01-04-2022, 11:49 AM)Giants Wrote:
(01-04-2022, 11:00 AM)Canalejas Wrote:
(01-03-2022, 01:55 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(01-03-2022, 12:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Interview with current P12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff. He takes a swipe or two at his predecessor. Talks about self-inflicted wounds related to the media rights deals. He says, "I have 30 months left on those contracts and I'm counting every hour. The Pac 12 fans have my commitment that we're going to fix that."

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-01-03/rose-bowl-george-kliavkoff-pac-12-conference-challenges

Love the idea of replacing game 9 with a PAC-12 vs Big 10 game.

My main concern here would be where that 9th game would come out of. Assuming we don't abandon the current divisional alignment, it's almost certainly going to mean the end of the yearly series against the LA schools for Stanford. Because with only 3 interdivisional games I'm not sure we'd be able to continue using two to lock in the LA pair annually, leaving only one game to rotate through the rest of the South division.

Much more likely would be an even rotation of the South teams, where we play one LA team, one AZ team, and one mountain team.

And, personally, I would hate that. Our yearly matchup against UCLA is my most attended game in my time as a fan. Both at the Farm and in Pasadena. I'd hate to give it up.

I think a non-divisional structure may be the choice of conference leadership. Eight games on a rotating basis, including one protected game (v. rival), and no guarantee of annual games between the NorCal and the SoCal schools.

That would be my vote. Look, playing SC and UCLA is good and traditional and all; but long-term, over time, it probably hurts Stanford's W/L record more than skipping one of them in favor of other conference teams would. I know that has been less true in somewhat recent years, but still. And despite my doom and gloom projections for Stanford football, if it survives, I want it to have best chance to thrive/succeed.

That would be my vote as well. Play 5 divisional games, rotate 3 games against other division schools. Personally, I believe the conference hurts itself with a requirement that California schools play each other every year. (Almost) nothing gives me greater pleasure than Stanford kicking the snot out of USC, but I could miss a couple of years for some interesting OOC road trips.

Not that this has anything to do with anything, but I find it interesting how the CFP discussion has changed from declaring a real national champion to getting more teams a shot at winning the big prize. Would adding 2 or 4 more teams change this year's CFP championship matchup? Would Notre Dame or OSU fared any better than Michigan or Cincy? Not in my opinion.

The conference missed a great opportunity by failing to expand with Texas and OK schools a few years ago. From recruiting to TV schedules, it would have a great boost for the PAC.

RE: Thanks Larry! - Canalejas - 01-05-2022

It just makes very little sense to me to want to play Wazzu and the Oregon schools twice as often as UCLA. I'd rather chicken out of playing Oregon as often if we're trying to game the schedule.

Also, not a fan of so many BYU matchups.

RE: Thanks Larry! - Papa John - 01-05-2022

BYU is joining the Big 12 in, I think, 2023. That makes them a more attractive opponent, as they should count as a respectable Power 5 opponent, at about the same level as Kansas State.

RE: Thanks Larry! - Canalejas - 01-05-2022

(01-05-2022, 04:04 PM)Papa John Wrote: BYU is joining the Big 12 in, I think, 2023. That makes them a more attractive opponent, as they should count as a respectable Power 5 opponent, at about the same level as Kansas State.

That's great for BYU and for our strength of schedule. But 7 matches in the next 13 years seems a bit much.

RE: Thanks Larry! - Beeg_Dawg - 01-05-2022

(01-05-2022, 11:24 AM)Canalejas Wrote: It just makes very little sense to me to want to play Wazzu and the Oregon schools twice as often as UCLA. I'd rather chicken out of playing Oregon as often if we're trying to game the schedule.

Also, not a fan of so many BYU matchups.

It just makes very little sense to me to want to visit Wazzu and the Oregon schools twice as often as UCLA. I'd rather chicken out of playing Oregon as often if we're trying to game the schedule.

Fixed it for you. It doesn't make sense to play the same out of division opponent every year, even if it is UCLA or USC. If the PAC expands to 14/16 teams you could never make playing SoCal schools every year work with other conference members.

RE: Thanks Larry! - Canalejas - 01-05-2022

Then perhaps we should never have been in a different division than the Bruins. That’s the root of the problem.

RE: Thanks Larry! - Beeg_Dawg - 01-05-2022

(01-05-2022, 05:20 PM)Canalejas Wrote: Then perhaps we should never have been in a different division than the Bruins. That’s the root of the problem.

Or maybe just remained as the PAC 8. Things were always better back in the day.

RE: Thanks Larry! - baycommuter - 01-05-2022

Some of the BYU games may be canceled as they need to clear room on their schedule for Big 12 games.
Playing USC every year is a must--if they're good again before we are, this will be about the only way to sell season tickets in even-numbered years. SC will be a hot ticket even next season if Caleb Williams becomes a Trojan.
USC fans used to buy Stanford season tickets in the end zone as it was cheaper than buying the single game on the open market.

RE: Thanks Larry! - CowboyIndian - 01-05-2022

(01-04-2022, 12:20 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: What do y'all think about the idea of the Pac-12 having the entire football-craving TV audience to itself by playing games on Wednesdays at 5:30pm local for 3 months in the Fall?

It would suck! Happy now?

lex24 - lex24 - 01-06-2022

(01-05-2022, 09:57 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:
(01-04-2022, 12:20 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: What do y'all think about the idea of the Pac-12 having the entire football-craving TV audience to itself by playing games on Wednesdays at 5:30pm local for 3 months in the Fall?

It would suck! Happy now?

LMAO

RE: Thanks Larry! - 2006alum - 05-23-2022

Apologies if I missed this discussion in another thread, but it bears noting somewhere: Power 5 conference revenues varied greatly for 2020-21 season amid COVID-19 pandemic

Quote:The ACC saw a 16.4% increase in revenues compared to 2019-20, the largest growth with the current membership, and distributed an average of $36.1 million per school. The Pac-12 reported an average distribution of $19.8 million per school, a decrease of 41% over the previous year. In a statement, the Pac-12 attributed those numbers primarily to decreased media rights and postseason bowl revenues, game cancellations, lower event revenue due to no fans, and higher costs associated with COVID-19 health and safety protocols and testing. . . . The SEC scheduled a 10-game conference football season and saw its revenues increase as well. In February, the league announced $777.8 million in total revenue was divided among its 14 schools, with an average of $54.6 million per school. That also was an increase over the previous year, in which $657.7 million in revenue was distributed.

Hard to think of a better ex post ratification of the decision that Scott needed to be shown the door. This is an appalling gap and a brutal reminder of the reason why the PAC-12 conference seems to be slipping behind its competitors. Sure, some of that isn't Scott's fault and is attributable to the most cautious football schedule (a decision that I think was defensible at the time, whatever hindsight may suggest). But still. Brutal.

RE: Thanks Larry! - OutsiderFan - 05-24-2022

The Pandemic has nothing to do with the Pac 12's revenues falling. The conference has many structural disadvantages to the Big Ten and SEC.

When the Big 12 loses Oklahoma and Texas, the pecking order will be:

1. SEC 2. Big Ten 3. ACC 4. Pac 12 5. Big 12

The SEC & Big Ten will be about on par. There will be a gap between those two and the ACC, which will be somewhat on par with the Pac 12, and then another gap between the Pac 12 and Big 12.

In any economic endeavor, the rich get richer. It's virtually impossible to compete for the top spot if you aren't in it already. Once the Big Ten and SEC got a lead, they consolidated it and left the others in the dust. People want to blame Larry Scott for everything the Pac 12 isn't, but it is my fervent belief that even if Jim Delaney or Roy Kramer (the commissioners who positioned the Big Ten and SEC at the top) headed up the Pac 12, the conference would still be lagging behind the others.

The Big Ten partnered with Fox Sports and got a little advantage. Then the SEC partnered with the World Wide Leader in sports. It's not an accident the Pac 12 is where it is and very little of why it is has to do with Larry Scott.

RE: Thanks Larry! - fullmetal - 05-24-2022

No, I think Larry Scott still takes a lot of the blame. He had a long tenure, and if he had started doing things the right way early on, compounded improvements could have placed the Pac-12 right behind the SEC. Look at where Oregon and USC, potential blueblood dynasties, could have been had they received appropriate revenues and recruiting status (maybe even scheduling status with a better network deal). Stanford over the last ten years might have been able to stave off decline with tens of millions of dollars more in revenue. The failed attempt at creating a Pac-12 media standalone vertical ensured that network broadcast deals would generally fail to be competitive. And the profligate spending...yeah no.

With Utah ascendant, imagine Stanford, Oregon, and USC holding top twenty rankings. The Pac-12 would be in a great place to negotiate network deals, if not for the time zone difference. (The needle that pops my balloon is that the majority of college football fandom eyeballs do not live west of the Mississippi...and that's where the money will be.)

RE: Thanks Larry! - Canalejas - 05-24-2022

I can't really argue with the overspending. He certainly did that. But I'm never going to hope that the conference brass puts their thumb on the scale to favor SC and the Ducks and create a more "compelling" product.

I think Larry's biggest mistake was thinking that we western fans would switch carriers to a large enough degree to give him leverage in negotiations.

And I hated the idea of selling an equity stake for a short-term infusion of cash.

RE: Thanks Larry! - fullmetal - 05-24-2022

No, thumbs on scales was not what I meant. I just meant that Oregon and USC could have benefited from SEC-level conference revenue sharing and continued their national prominence much as Stanford would have. Perhaps their coaching snafus would have tanked them anyway, but the money couldn't have hurt.