Stanford to the ACC? - 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: Stanford to the ACC? (/thread-24323.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: Stanford to the ACC? (/thread-24323.html)
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Mick - 08-10-2023
I say this with genuine respect, but given the reality of Stanford football's current program, our stance towards NIL investments, our mass net departures via the portal (to say the least), and TT's background as an FCS coach (albeit a very successful one); the odds of Coach TT outperforming expectations to the degree that he would be considered attractive to a Power 5 football program are very, very long. Not quite as long as Stanford v. USC at the Coliseum in 2007, but pretty darned close...
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - jacket3ree - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 06:53 AM)pcgoode Wrote: I don’t think we are getting into any remaining Power 5 conference unless Notre Dame says they will join on the condition that Stanford gets in as well, or we do so based on a massive haircut on revenues.
This is it, exactly. There are only 4 "power" conferences left:
1. SEC - Nope
2. B1G - keep dreaming, but nope
3. BIG12 - I thought they asked and Stanford said "no"?
4. ACC - only instant power option
Everyone knows the story about breakfast, right? The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. ND has been heavily involved in pushing Stanford and Cal to the ACC. Some think a stable ACC is ND's best option to keep their options open. If ND football became the pig and joined the ACC with NBC in tow somehow, the conference is saved and Stanford is in the #3 Power 4. A really strong #3. ND is already playing 5 or 6 ACC football games every year. They can keep USC and Navy and get Stanford for free. ND has had memorable series and games with Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State. It's not the worst idea on earth and they owe the ACC, but it's ND, so they are the king makers. Until they are not. Their contract with NBC ends in a year and those dollars are starting to slide.
Since Stanford seems unwilling to lead, follow the lead of SDSU's president, who is ready to reshape a Pacific Coast Conference. Go where you are wanted. Why can every other power team figure out how to move, but we're worried about MWC exit fees and debasing ourselves to, God forbid, play in San Diego or Hawaii regularly, because we've played San Diego and Hawaii before? Sometimes life throws crap at you, and it is time to rebuild. Make the Mountain Pacific Conference a power conference.
When 4 merge with 12, usually the name of the 12 stays, but I'm sure the 12 would rebrand if treated right.
Honestly, I don't understand the point of 24 team conferences. Ted: "That don't make no sense." Roy: "Money." Ted: "Oh right, that makes sense."
Re Hawaii: Godspeed to everyone on Maui.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Giants - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 08:10 AM)jacket3ree Wrote:(08-10-2023, 06:53 AM)pcgoode Wrote: I don’t think we are getting into any remaining Power 5 conference unless Notre Dame says they will join on the condition that Stanford gets in as well, or we do so based on a massive haircut on revenues.
This is it, exactly. There are only 4 "power" conferences left:
1. SEC - Nope
2. B1G - keep dreaming, but nope
3. BIG12 - I thought they asked and Stanford said "no"?
4. ACC - only instant power option
Everyone knows the story about breakfast, right? The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. ND has been heavily involved in pushing Stanford and Cal to the ACC. Some think a stable ACC is ND's best option to keep their options open. If ND football became the pig and joined the ACC with NBC in tow somehow, the conference is saved and Stanford is in the #3 Power 4. A really strong #3. ND is already playing 5 or 6 ACC football games every year. They can keep USC and Navy and get Stanford for free. ND has had memorable series and games with Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State. It's not the worst idea on earth and they owe the ACC, but it's ND, so they are the king makers. Until they are not. Their contract with NBC ends in a year and those dollars are starting to slide.
Since Stanford seems unwilling to lead, follow the lead of SDSU's president, who is ready to reshape a Pacific Coast Conference. Go where you are wanted. Why can every other power team figure out how to move, but we're worried about MWC exit fees and debasing ourselves to, God forbid, play in San Diego or Hawaii regularly, because we've played San Diego and Hawaii before? Sometimes life throws crap at you, and it is time to rebuild. Make the Mountain Pacific Conference a power conference.
When 4 merge with 12, usually the name of the 12 stays, but I'm sure the 12 would rebrand if treated right.
Honestly, I don't understand the point of 24 team conferences. Ted: "That don't make no sense." Roy: "Money." Ted: "Oh right, that makes sense."
Re Hawaii: Godspeed to everyone on Maui.
Pete Bevacquac is the AD-in-waiting at ND. Most recently, he was the Chair of NBC Sports. I think the Irish are in line to get the deal they want next year from NBC to remain “independent”.
Meanwhile ESPN has a stranglehold on the ACC through its part ownership of the ACC Network.
Unless, ESPN agrees to enough of a revision of their deal with the ACC to placate the malcontents, Stanford and Cal are doomed to playing at the same level as Arkansas State………..
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-10-2023
You can call it Pac-10 or Pac-12 or Mountain Pacific or Pacific Mountain or whatever you want, we're not turning a western conference without USC, Oregon, and Washington into a power conference. Impossible. I'd say the bare minimum definition of a power conference would be something like being able to consistently have 3+ top 25 teams. The programs you'd be talking about in the most ambitious geographic grouping possible (taking all teams in the western part of the United States not currently signed up for a Power Four conference) have had more than two teams ranked in the top 25 seven times in the last 34 years (I picked 34 because that's how far back Wikipedia lists top 25 rankings, top 20 before that). For what it's worth, they were 1991, 1992, 2004, 2006, 2011, 2012, and 2018. This grouping of schools is a quality of programs that can be relevant in very good years but absolutely will not be relevant in typical years. There's too much demographics, culture, institutional constraints, and competition nationally for that not to be the case. You can't take a conference headlined by Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, Washington State, Boise State, Air Force, and Fresno State and make it a Power Five conference. That's fantasy. Hell of a Group of Five conference, but not power. Impediments are too structural. The hope the fantasists can spin is that the the Pac-4 remnants would lift up the other teams, which is true....but being without the rest of the Pac-12 will simultaneously suppress the Pac-4 remnants. Quality of conference just matters too much for money, prestige, and recruiting. Cannot be major without USC, Washington, or Oregon or joining a non-regional coalition. Staying regional without the only consistently relevant western schools is a path to irrelevance. Maybe some are fine with that but we should be clear-eyed about it.
If we are forced to go regional outside of the Big 10 (which given its new members is actually sort of a regional conference for us), we should do it with anger that we've been unfairly kicked out of the party and with determination to get back to the party. The goal wouldn't be to make the Pacific Mountain Conference major but rather to make ourselves major again, in spite of the Pacific Mountain Conference. We should plow resources and determination into following the path BYU, Cincinnati, and Houston forged before us of major teams kicked out of major conference status that fought their way back.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - 81alum - 08-10-2023
Is there a billionaire alum, similar to John Arrillaga, who could just endow athletics with enough to replace the TV revenue that we would lose by being independent or playing in a non power-4 conference? Couldn't we regularly get our old Pac 12 partners and Notre Dame on the football schedule? And if our coaching and facilities and matchups are as good as any power 4 school, what does it matter?
In short, does Stanford have the resources necessary to buy ourselves out of this mess? All the coaches and athletic scholarships are payed for out of endowments already, no? That is more than a start....
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Jamesy - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 04:22 AM)Canalejas Wrote: I’ve read that UVA and UNC are likely to receive interest from the B1G and/or the SEC. So I guess all four are trying to flee.
I would hope that the B1G would consider us to bring more value to the table than either of those programs, but who knows these days.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 09:12 AM)81alum Wrote: Is there a billionaire alum, similar to John Arrillaga, who could just endow athletics with enough to replace the TV revenue that we would lose by being independent or playing in a non power-4 conference? Couldn't we regularly get our old Pac 12 partners and Notre Dame on the football schedule? And if our coaching and facilities and matchups are as good as any power 4 school, what does it matter?
In short, does Stanford have the resources necessary to buy ourselves out of this mess? All the coaches and athletic scholarships are payed for out of endowments already, no? That is more than a start....
Money would help a lot with scheduling (bribing teams to play us as make no mistake that would be necessary as an independent) and travel (if additional travel to fill the schedule would be needed compared to Pac-12 days, as would be likely). It only minimally helps with recruiting (and only then if we actually invest in recruiting resources) and not even remotely close to compensating for the potentially mortal blow of losing the power conference cachet.
I think you and many are far too sanguine about being able to get our former conference brethren to play us. They don’t need us anymore. They’re in the big leagues now, and now that they are will probably be looking for cupcakes in the non/conference schedule. Even if they want to play us, the best time for them is the first three weeks of the season…. We can only play three games in that span and have to figure out what to do with the other nine. Realistically, if we go independent we will have to prioritize which of the traditions to try to save (and I assume Cal, USC, and UCLA will be the first ones we try to save) and by and large will have to scramble to fill out a dog’s breakfast of a schedule. That’s what independent life is.
As for the likelihood of getting a billionaire donor to bail us out, I question how functionally rich our football program is. Yes, the endowment is enormous. Yes, there are some very wealthy Stanford alumni. The problem is the endowment isn’t used for sports and the alumni don’t give to the program in any sort of way that stands out with who we’re trying to compete against. In terms of actual commitment Stanford has shown to major sports it’s bargain basement coaches, adequate but hardly Oregon (or any number of other programs) resources, and facility upgrades when one particular benefactor who is now gone decided to make it happen. In terms of what you’re talking about, I’m not convinced Stanford is actually more resource-rich than SMU. Our rich alums tend to focus on building family wealth, philanthropy, climate change, bankrolling Oregon sports….
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - SkiBum80 - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 09:12 AM)81alum Wrote: Is there a billionaire alum, similar to John Arrillaga, who could just endow athletics with enough to replace the TV revenue that we would lose by being independent or playing in a non power-4 conference? Couldn't we regularly get our old Pac 12 partners and Notre Dame on the football schedule? And if our coaching and facilities and matchups are as good as any power 4 school, what does it matter?
In short, does Stanford have the resources necessary to buy ourselves out of this mess? All the coaches and athletic scholarships are payed for out of endowments already, no? That is more than a start....
I would hope a wealthy alum(s) would step up.
Potentially gaping hole Ath Dept funding loss is a big part of what's going on here.
But there is a second part related by both the Pres of UW and Coach TT.
National visibility and relevance for the football team of playing in a Power conference.
UW cited this as a big reason to bolt to the B1G. "Our players deserve visibility" or something like that was her quote.
Coach TT cited this too as his expectation to continue to play in a Power conference regardless if needed to travel.
It would be very hard to maintain top coaching and top recruits if the team foresees uncertainty of who they'll even be playing next year and the year after.
Especially if the only certainty being that it won't be in a Power conference and it won't be with any national coverage, maybe regional coverage at best.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Leftcoast - 08-10-2023
Five stages of conference realignment
Denial - Rebuild the Pac/Go Independent/We'll be FINE
Anger - F*** USC, F** UCLA, F*** UW, F*** Oregon
Bargaining - Let's buy our way into ACC/How far is the Atlantic Coast anyway?
Depression - Stanford Athletics is DEAD
Acceptance - (Who knows? I'm still stuck on Anger)
F*** USC
Hieronymus - Hieronymus - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 07:34 AM)Goose Wrote:(08-10-2023, 06:08 AM)msqueri Wrote: The downside of that is without the ballast provided by Florida State the ACC becomes next on the menu for super conference poaching, so we’d be contemplating joining a dying conference.As I understand it, UVA and UNC see themselves as the "leaders" of the ACC. UNC certainly has that reputation. Adding Stanford and Cal might be viewed as adding competition for the "elder statesmen" roles. IMO there are plenty of "good" reasons to oppose adding two teams from the opposite coast. However, given the decision making process in college football these days, I doubt anybody in the ACC is really looking at those reasons. From a "what's in it for me" point of view, if the deal brings no additional money to each school, it is unclear what the advantages are to the ACC. IMO there is no way one could argue it makes the conference "stronger", as they are taking "leftovers" from the PAC-12. Given the travel issues, why do it? If FSU and Clemson do intend to leave, it would make sense iff the money stayed the same (or increased) for all remaining schools. Of course, what ND thinks may count a bit.
Some argue that the most lucrative ACC programs oppose our joining precisely because we help stabilize the conference and they’d rather get on with SEC/Big 10 consolidation.
(Post in response to Jskass in case post in the interim made that unclear)
I suspect this is right as well as the comments that UNC and UVA expect to jump to the Big 10 eventually. But man this takes things even beyond USC sabotage level because it’s all in the open. Here we are claiming that 2 schools who consider themselves to be leaders of the ACC aren’t willing to take a small hit on $ to help ensure long term stability because they expect to leave the ACC eventually. I don’t think anyone would consider that leadership, especially other ACC schools. Not that the others can do much about in terms of expansion. But just wow.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - SkiBum80 - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 09:57 AM)Leftcoast Wrote: Five stages of conference realignment
Denial - Rebuild the Pac/Go Independent/We'll be FINE
Anger - F*** USC, F** UCLA, F*** UW, F*** Oregon
Bargaining - Let's buy our way into ACC/How far is the Atlantic Coast anyway?
Depression - Stanford Athletics is DEAD
Acceptance - (Who knows? I'm still stuck on Anger)
F*** USC
Totally sympathize.
To relate to your WWII quote, USC and UCLA bolting was like Nazi Germany invading Poland.
The rest of the PAC was like Europe, trying to rationalize that the problem will be a one-off and is containable.
In hindsight is very easy to see that one thing leads to another and to another and pretty soon there's carnage everywhere.
But at the time, many like to believe the rationalizing because it is comforting and postpones having to do anything difficult.
Until it may be too late.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - BillBradley - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 09:12 AM)81alum Wrote: Is there a billionaire alum, similar to John Arrillaga, who could just endow athletics with enough to replace the TV revenue that we would lose by being independent or playing in a non power-4 conference? Couldn't we regularly get our old Pac 12 partners and Notre Dame on the football schedule? And if our coaching and facilities and matchups are as good as any power 4 school, what does it matter?Agree 81, I really hope the powers that be are considering throwing money at this problem. To take it a step further, think how millions of dollars could help solve these problems:
In short, does Stanford have the resources necessary to buy ourselves out of this mess? All the coaches and athletic scholarships are payed for out of endowments already, no? That is more than a start....
- ND buyout
- Reduced revenue share
- In league competitor site/time scheduling
- Lure Top-20 teams for out of league games
- Flights (private charter everywhere, always)
- Stays (better hotels, no roomates, better food)
- Facilities to practice on east coast
- NIL deals
- Etc. etc.
OK, it's disgusting to think about things like turning the travel hardship into luxury trips. But heck, I'd sign up. When you're facing a tarnished brand and the demise of long standing athletic excellence in all sports, you'd better be open to ideas like this.
Mudhead - Mudhead - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 12:20 PM)BillBradley Wrote:(08-10-2023, 09:12 AM)81alum Wrote: Is there a billionaire alum, similar to John Arrillaga, who could just endow athletics with enough to replace the TV revenue that we would lose by being independent or playing in a non power-4 conference? Couldn't we regularly get our old Pac 12 partners and Notre Dame on the football schedule? And if our coaching and facilities and matchups are as good as any power 4 school, what does it matter?Agree 81, I really hope the powers that be are considering throwing money at this problem. To take it a step further, think how millions of dollars could help solve these problems:
In short, does Stanford have the resources necessary to buy ourselves out of this mess? All the coaches and athletic scholarships are payed for out of endowments already, no? That is more than a start....
- ND buyout
- Reduced revenue share
- In league competitor site/time scheduling
- Lure Top-20 teams for out of league games
- Flights (private charter everywhere, always)
- Stays (better hotels, no roomates, better food)
- Facilities to practice on east coast
- NIL deals
- Etc. etc.
OK, it's disgusting to think about things like turning the travel hardship into luxury trips. But heck, I'd sign up. When you're facing a tarnished brand and the demise of long standing athletic excellence in all sports, you'd better be open to ideas like this.
The other choice is for Stanford to continue its slide towards being average. weak leadership typically finds that the easiest path ..and ease is what weak leadership seeks. Does Stanford still have the fire in the belly to be excellent that moved us in previous decades? Do we still value excellence or are safe spaces and not comfort our new values? Not just a question about athletics but a question about .Stanford Leadership Beginning with the BOT, running through the President and Prevost offices and especially including a faculty that values conformity over excellence . And yes , student body that can’t spell “fun” if you spot them the f and the u .
Probably too apocalyptic an outlook; maybe it’s just sports. But I’ve seen organizations that start settling for being safe rather than being the best. It doesn’t end well . No more comments, it’s too dark in here.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 11:52 AM)branner Wrote: If we assume your "minimum definition of a power conference," California alone has enough high school football talent to populate that number of teams, even with USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington all getting their usual share. Is there an argument that, say, Washington State and Oregon State are institutionally incapable of sustained, Top 25 success? I have been a passionate, attentive fan of college football for over fifty years. I cannot think of a single team that has not gone through ups and downs over that period. Even perennial doormats can rise, given the institutional commitment.
Members of a true, regional conference have a terrific argument to make to recruits: you won't be spending an excruciating amount of time on airplanes and in buses, and will be able to provide your families a reasonable prospect of seeing you play. I remain dubious that as constituted, either the ACC or Big 10 are long for this world. The travel demands are inconsistent with concept "student-athlete."
I appreciate your perspective but think it's wishful and naive.
You vastly overrate California's talent and the ability of non-power conference schools to attract it. California is a good state for football talent due primarily to its massive size but it's not a great state for football talent, especially outside of a swath of Southern California. That, along with demographic and cultural reasons making football not very central to life in California, is why despite being by far the biggest state we only have seven major college football programs. North Carolina has barely a quarter as many people but as many major college football teams. Ohio, roughly the same size as North Carolina, has eight major college football teams. Alabama has 13 percent of California's population but six major college football teams. Louisiana has 12 percent of California's population but five major college football teams. Texas has millions fewer people than California but 13 major college football teams. Other states actually care about football and produce talent. California has a lot of people so it develops a lot of football players, but we punch way below our weight.
California's ability to maintain athletes is diminishing
More alarmingly, the correlation between California residence and matriculation to California colleges has been going down in college football. Really good players from California now go to the SEC and Big 10. Now that USC and Oregon are in the Big 10 that's almost exclusively the case. In the 2024 class right now, only two of the top 30 players in California are committed to schools outside the future Power Four - #17 Elijah Brown and #29 Naki Tuakoi (and, of course, Stanford was a Power Five school when they committed). Only two of the top 30 recruits in California in 2023 went to Pac-4 remnants, #11 Aidan Chiles to Oregon State and #29 JShawn Frausto-Ramos to us. The harsh reality is that a Group of Five team would be thrilled to get top 100 players in California. That's not a level that will compete. Sure, you can "populate" a roster with people who grew up in California, but it's not going to be good unless the players are good. The good players have already been going elsewhere and now will be more attracted to USC and the other Pac-12 exiles in the Big 10 because they're playing in a marquee conference for the first time in a decade.
Oregon State and Washington State
There is indeed an argument that Oregon State and Washington State are institutionally incapable of sustained top 25 success. These have been consistently very well-run programs for decades but have ceilings on what they can accomplish. Oregon State had singular top 10 years under Tommy Prothro and Dennis Erickson - both Hall of Famers among the best in the business - and in the last quarter century has consistently had outstanding coaching that peaks with occasional top 25 teams. Washington State has had slightly more frequent top 10 years with their excellent coaches, but when Mike Price did it Washington State wasn't institutionally capable of keeping him from the big leagues (in fairness few teams would have been) and then couldn't follow him up with somebody who sustained it, and Mike Leach's top 10 season was actually his only top 25 season. It should tell us something when programs with really, really good coaches can't have more than five top 25 seasons this century (the case for both of these schools).
Consistency of the Haves
You say not a single team has avoided ups and downs. True, but you're vastly overstating this case too. There is consistency to the teams that tend to be competitive and the teams that don't. A few days I ago I posted data showing the 68 teams that currently have Power Five homes ranked by top 25 seasons all time and in this century. In the 22 seasons this century, there are 17 programs that have been top 25 half the time or more. Comparing the two lists, 13 of those 17 programs are historical heavyweights. The only exceptions are Wisconsin (somewhat misleading to say they weren't a heavyweight previously considering they made three Rose Bowls in the decade immediately preceding this period, but I'll grant that the institutional commitment from Barry Alvarez onward changed the historical birthright of the program), TCU (data distorted by one legendary coach and it's quite likely that this is a program that wasn't previously and won't in the future be a consistent heavyweight), Virginia Tech (ditto), and Oregon (we all know this is the Phil Knight story).
When you say "even perennial doormats rise, given the institutional commitment," that is true but rare. There are two paths: hire a legendary coach who finds his bliss and just sticks around (Virginia Tech, TCU), though eventually the party ends; or decide as an institution that you're a football power and will not take losing for an answer (Wisconsin, Oregon). Stanford always tries to follow the first path rather than the second, and that's a much worse bet. (After all, it's not like other schools aren't also trying to hire good coaches)
Importantly, when perennial doormats rise it's typically in the context of a major conference because there are so many advantages to being seen as major and so many disadvantages to being seen as not. The one program that has truly provided hope that being consigned to a minor conference need not be a death knell is TCU. Patterson really built them up and made them worthy of a Power Conference. In order for a new western conference to build up to be major, we would need teams from the Mountain West to pull off that miracle and for the Pac-4 remnants to keep their games up despite the major hit to revenue. Such a tall order.
Good Recruits' Expectations
Your last paragraph may be the most naive and wishful of all. Good recruits want a stage. All empirical evidence points to the quality of conference being the most important factor in a recruit's decision. That's why Power Five is better than Group of Five which is better than FCS which is better than Division II/III/NAIA. It's basically the definition of conferences - clubs whereby the best players can arrange themselves in hierarchies based on talent. Good recruits, by and large, are not going to pick for the quality of school or to minimize travel. They want a stage (you're right that they want family and friends to see them...pretty frickin' big deal in the negative column in this day and age if games don't have big nationally televised platforms, which is another differentiator between conferences). They wouldn't be big recruits if they didn't. Real talent wants to go to Juilliard or the Culinary Institute of America or Broadway.....or the Big 10. It's wishful thinking to argue football recruits might be different.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - yvonne - 08-10-2023
I'm already at depression. Without sports, Stanford gets a lot of attention because of its performance in non-revenue sports. It gained those records because of previous success and because of competition with USC and UCLA, which are also consistently top five in those sports. UNC and Virginia also do well in Olympic sports, so they could possibly replace them. Without solid competition, Stanford will not attract solid recruits. It will get fewer championships and will have to cut sports. Stanford without sports is merely the Ivy League (possibly even MIT and CalTech even) with nice weather.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - oman - 08-10-2023
I'm a little past anger, but my anger was always directed at Stanford.
https://www.si.com/college/arkansas/hogs-football/razorbacks-stanford-cardinal-texas-longhorns-pac-12-realignment-big-12-big-ten-sec
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - yvonne - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 01:23 PM)oman Wrote: I'm a little past anger, but my anger was always directed at Stanford.
https://www.si.com/college/arkansas/hogs-football/razorbacks-stanford-cardinal-texas-longhorns-pac-12-realignment-big-12-big-ten-sec
That guy lost me at "[Stanford is] good in a few minor sports." Secondly, I'm pretty sure that it was USC, not Stanford, that nixed Texas the first time around, and the second time, it was because of the Oklahoma schools, not Texas.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - Branner77 - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 01:21 PM)yvonne Wrote: I'm already at depression. Without sports, Stanford gets a lot of attention because of its performance in non-revenue sports. It gained those records because of previous success and because of competition with USC and UCLA, which are also consistently top five in those sports. UNC and Virginia also do well in Olympic sports, so they could possibly replace them. Without solid competition, Stanford will not attract solid recruits. It will get fewer championships and will have to cut sports. Stanford without sports is merely the Ivy League (possibly even MIT and CalTech even) with nice weather.
Every now and then, some of the Ivies do okay even in revenue sports. Princeton for instance, was Sweet 16 in MBB, round of 32 in WBB this past winter. Princeton WWP made the final 4. Cornell and Yale very good in M LAX. etc.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - msqueri - 08-10-2023
There are revenue sports beyond football?
In all seriousness, for those wondering, on average NCAA schools make four times as much on football as basketball, over 11 times as much on football as men's ice hockey, almost 20 times as much on football as women's basketball, about 23 times as much on football as baseball, about 25 times as much on football as track and field, about 32 times as much on football as men's lacrosse, and nothing else really seems significant. The average football team makes more revenue than the next 35 teams on average combined.
In terms of big picture importance there is only football. Even if you love other less popular sports, as I do for baseball, track and field, and golf, you should recognize that none of it happens without football. Too many people at Stanford had highfalutin thoughts about country club sports that in the grand scheme nobody cares about and that can't thrive like we love without the program people actually care about and will spend money on. Now I fear we are going to see the consequences of a Stanford with less of a preeminent place for football. Hope not. Don't think it would be pleasant for either the football obsessives or the football haters.
RE: Stanford to the ACC? - SkiBum80 - 08-10-2023
(08-10-2023, 02:34 PM)msqueri Wrote: There are revenue sports beyond football?
In all seriousness, for those wondering, on average NCAA schools make four times as much on football as basketball, over 11 times as much on football as men's ice hockey, almost 20 times as much on football as women's basketball, about 23 times as much on football as baseball, about 25 times as much on football as track and field, about 32 times as much on football as men's lacrosse, and nothing else really seems significant. The average football team makes more revenue than the next 35 teams on average combined.
In terms of big picture importance there is only football. Even if you love other less popular sports, as I do for baseball, track and field, and golf, you should recognize that none of it happens without football. Too many people at Stanford had highfalutin thoughts about country club sports that in the grand scheme nobody cares about and that can't thrive like we love without the program people actually care about and will spend money on. Now I fear we are going to see the consequences of a Stanford with less of a preeminent place for football. Hope not. Don't think it would be pleasant for either the football obsessives or the football haters.
Just wondering, when saying NCAA schools, is it Division 1 schools? All Divisions? I'd guess that if you started with all Divisions, then Divsion 1 only, and then Power 5 schools only, the higher you go up the football level scale the multiples grow to much bigger multiples of football compared to all other sports.