[OutsiderFan]

 (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.)

This just totally undoes your argument. Why do you think I said if Jim Delaney or Roy Kramer led the Pac there would be no difference in the Pac's station in life? Here is the reality:

1. Larry Scott made a bold move to be the first 16-team conference, by adding Oklahoma, Texas, Okie State, Texas Tech, TCU, and aTm. This move would have effectively killed the Big 12 and made the Pac the largest conference with the most eyeballs. I also think this move would have increased interest in the 10 Pac programs at the time as the whole conference would have been given a lift into being a big deal, which would have impacted recruiting, etc.

2. When Texas and OU balked, the Pac Presidents decided to add Colorado and Utah instead, just to be able to have a football championship game, which at the time required two divisions and at least 12 teams. It was a weak move that helped Utah far more than the Pac as a whole, and has had little impact on Colorado from my perspective.

3. Then with a less than compelling product, Scott decided to create a Pac media company without a sports media equity partner like the Big Ten and SEC were doing. It all hinged on getting carried by DirecTV, but AT&T, DirecTV's owner at the time said no because of the lack of eyeballs issue. Given the value of live sports content, the new DirecTV owners might agree to carry Pac Network, but we're into digital streaming rights now, and its a different world than a decade ago.

The reality is the Pac's demise was ordained as soon as Scott's Big 12 gambit failed. Rather than join the Pac, Texas A&M left for the SEC, a move that led to Missouri joining as well to balance out the East and West with 7 teams. Nobody could foresee Texas and Oklahoma bolting for SEC when Scott was maneuvering, so can't blame him for that. 

I'm not being Larry Scott's agent here. Just pointing out that IT IS a numbers game. The Pac region doesn't have the numbers to compete with the Big Ten or SEC. Scott made a bold move to get those numbers the day he was hired, but couldn't get it done without special treatment for Texas. Remember, the Pac came to Texas, not the other way around. Texas went to the SEC. The leverage equations were different. And probably most significantly, the Longhorn Network - which seemed like an unfair advantage for Texas joining the Pac and was a stumbling block to get a deal done - had since proved a failure when Texas joined the SEC. The LHN will no longer exist when Texas joins the SEC.

In other words, Texas didn't want to give up its media rights to the Pac and wanted them for the LHN at the time Scott was trying to grow to 16 schools. They made no such demand to the SEC after seeing the LHN fail.

[OutsiderFan]

 (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.)

This just totally undoes your argument. Why do you think I said if Jim Delaney or Roy Kramer led the Pac there would be no difference in the Pac's station in life? Here is the reality:

1. Larry Scott made a bold move to be the first 16-team conference, by adding Oklahoma, Texas, Okie State, Texas Tech, TCU, and aTm. This move would have effectively killed the Big 12 and made the Pac the largest conference with the most eyeballs. I also think this move would have increased interest in the 10 Pac programs at the time as the whole conference would have been given a lift into being a big deal, which would have impacted recruiting, etc.

2. When Texas and OU balked, the Pac Presidents decided to add Colorado and Utah instead, just to be able to have a football championship game, which at the time required two divisions and at least 12 teams. It was a weak move that helped Utah far more than the Pac as a whole, and has had little impact on Colorado from my perspective.

3. Then with a less than compelling product, Scott decided to create a Pac media company without a sports media equity partner like the Big Ten and SEC were doing. It all hinged on getting carried by DirecTV, but AT&T, DirecTV's owner at the time said no because of the lack of eyeballs issue. Given the value of live sports content, the new DirecTV owners might agree to carry Pac Network, but we're into digital streaming rights now, and its a different world than a decade ago.

The reality is the Pac's demise was ordained as soon as Scott's Big 12 gambit failed. Rather than join the Pac, Texas A&M left for the SEC, a move that led to Missouri joining as well to balance out the East and West with 7 teams. Nobody could foresee Texas and Oklahoma bolting for SEC when Scott was maneuvering, so can't blame him for that. 

I'm not being Larry Scott's agent here. Just pointing out that IT IS a numbers game. The Pac region doesn't have the numbers to compete with the Big Ten or SEC. Scott made a bold move to get those numbers the day he was hired, but couldn't get it done without special treatment for Texas. Remember, the Pac came to Texas, not the other way around. Texas went to the SEC. The leverage equations were different. And probably most significantly, the Longhorn Network - which seemed like an unfair advantage for Texas joining the Pac and was a stumbling block to get a deal done - had since proved a failure when Texas joined the SEC. The LHN will no longer exist when Texas joins the SEC.

In other words, Texas didn't want to give up its media rights to the Pac and wanted them for the LHN at the time Scott was trying to grow to 16 schools. They made no such demand to the SEC after seeing the LHN fail.

[DC 86]

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.

This cynical comment is so absurd that perhaps it doesn't merit a response, but I'm still surprised that nobody has commented. The entire economic history of the United States is literally based on entrepreneurship and industry disruption. But in case we need obvious examples:

I suppose IBM with 85% market share in the personal computer market at one point could never be toppled by upstarts founded in garages, to the point that they eventually stop manufacturing the product entirely.
I suppose it's impossible for General Motors (just under 50% market share in 1980) to have sold fewer cars in the US last year than Toyota (6% market share at the time).
I suppose it would be impossible for Altavista not to continue to reign supreme in the search engine space, just as MySpace will indefinitely exploit its dominance of the social media segment.
Inconceivable that taxi medallions won't make their owners richer every year since it's impossible for an alternative mode of mass market private transportation to emerge.
Unbelievable that movie studios wouldn't continue to print money, and that the most successful studio of them all (MGM) would have to declare bankruptcy and be acquired by an online retailer and content streamer.
Pan Am, TWA and Eastern not only don't dominate U.S. air travel, they don't even exist anymore. The airline with the highest market cap in the world is Southwest, which was basically a regional airline until about 25 years ago.
Obviously there are unlimited examples, even without resorting to cotton kings and railroad barons.

[DC 86]

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.

This cynical comment is so absurd that perhaps it doesn't merit a response, but I'm still surprised that nobody has commented. The entire economic history of the United States is literally based on entrepreneurship and industry disruption. But in case we need obvious examples:

I suppose IBM with 85% market share in the personal computer market at one point could never be toppled by upstarts founded in garages, to the point that they eventually stop manufacturing the product entirely.
I suppose it's impossible for General Motors (just under 50% market share in 1980) to have sold fewer cars in the US last year than Toyota (6% market share at the time).
I suppose it would be impossible for Altavista not to continue to reign supreme in the search engine space, just as MySpace will indefinitely exploit its dominance of the social media segment.
Inconceivable that taxi medallions won't make their owners richer every year since it's impossible for an alternative mode of mass market private transportation to emerge.
Unbelievable that movie studios wouldn't continue to print money, and that the most successful studio of them all (MGM) would have to declare bankruptcy and be acquired by an online retailer and content streamer.
Pan Am, TWA and Eastern not only don't dominate U.S. air travel, they don't even exist anymore. The airline with the highest market cap in the world is Southwest, which was basically a regional airline until about 25 years ago.
Obviously there are unlimited examples, even without resorting to cotton kings and railroad barons.

[BostonCard]

Hell, you can stay in football, and note that in the 1880’s, the national champions were Yale (8) and Princeton (3); they shared a national title in 1880.  In the 1890’s, the national titles also went primarily to Ivy League teams (plus Lafayette).  The first decade that you see a national title to a team now considered a blue blood was in the 1900’s, when Michigan won 4 titles and LSU won one, but you also saw the University of Chicago win one in 1905.  Cal winning three titles in the early 20’s did not translate to them subsequently getting richer; remind me again when the last time they went to the Rose Bowl was?

Even as recently as the 90’s, you had teams like Georgia Tech and Nebraska winning titles, something they have struggled to do since then.

BC

[BostonCard]

Hell, you can stay in football, and note that in the 1880’s, the national champions were Yale (8) and Princeton (3); they shared a national title in 1880.  In the 1890’s, the national titles also went primarily to Ivy League teams (plus Lafayette).  The first decade that you see a national title to a team now considered a blue blood was in the 1900’s, when Michigan won 4 titles and LSU won one, but you also saw the University of Chicago win one in 1905.  Cal winning three titles in the early 20’s did not translate to them subsequently getting richer; remind me again when the last time they went to the Rose Bowl was?

Even as recently as the 90’s, you had teams like Georgia Tech and Nebraska winning titles, something they have struggled to do since then.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

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.

This cynical comment is so absurd that perhaps it doesn't merit a response, but I'm still surprised that nobody has commented. The entire economic history of the United States is literally based on entrepreneurship and industry disruption. But in case we need obvious examples:

I suppose IBM with 85% market share in the personal computer market at one point could never be toppled by upstarts founded in garages, to the point that they eventually stop manufacturing the product entirely.
I suppose it's impossible for General Motors (just under 50% market share in 1980) to have sold fewer cars in the US last year than Toyota (6% market share at the time).
I suppose it would be impossible for Altavista not to continue to reign supreme in the search engine space, just as MySpace will indefinitely exploit its dominance of the social media segment.
Inconceivable that taxi medallions won't make their owners richer every year since it's impossible for an alternative mode of mass market private transportation to emerge.
Unbelievable that movie studios wouldn't continue to print money, and that the most successful studio of them all (MGM) would have to declare bankruptcy and be acquired by an online retailer and content streamer.
Pan Am, TWA and Eastern not only don't dominate U.S. air travel, they don't even exist anymore. The airline with the highest market cap in the world is Southwest, which was basically a regional airline until about 25 years ago.
Obviously there are unlimited examples, even without resorting to cotton kings and railroad barons.

I wasn't referring to history as much as today. The gap between rich and not rich, and the advantages the rich have been able to secure for preferred paradigms that protect themselves via a corrupt political system, have never been greater in our history. You can roll out all the examples you did, but they are from another era. Anti-trust law enforcement has atrophied so much that it's hard to believe any laws to curb anti-competitive practices even exist.

We live in an oligopoly-dominated world now.  As an entrepreneur who will not compromise my values, I know just how hard it is to even gain traction in a world dominated by oligopolies when you offer a different paradigm, let alone became a market leader in them as a new company.

Can anyone make a credible argument to me that the Pac-12 or whatever it calls itself is ever going to be one of the two best college football conference from here on out? The SEC and Big Ten aren't going to stop pushing the envelope to get bigger and better. I want to see the argument for how this is going to happen. Put that case forward and I will retract my statement that was

[OutsiderFan]

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.

This cynical comment is so absurd that perhaps it doesn't merit a response, but I'm still surprised that nobody has commented. The entire economic history of the United States is literally based on entrepreneurship and industry disruption. But in case we need obvious examples:

I suppose IBM with 85% market share in the personal computer market at one point could never be toppled by upstarts founded in garages, to the point that they eventually stop manufacturing the product entirely.
I suppose it's impossible for General Motors (just under 50% market share in 1980) to have sold fewer cars in the US last year than Toyota (6% market share at the time).
I suppose it would be impossible for Altavista not to continue to reign supreme in the search engine space, just as MySpace will indefinitely exploit its dominance of the social media segment.
Inconceivable that taxi medallions won't make their owners richer every year since it's impossible for an alternative mode of mass market private transportation to emerge.
Unbelievable that movie studios wouldn't continue to print money, and that the most successful studio of them all (MGM) would have to declare bankruptcy and be acquired by an online retailer and content streamer.
Pan Am, TWA and Eastern not only don't dominate U.S. air travel, they don't even exist anymore. The airline with the highest market cap in the world is Southwest, which was basically a regional airline until about 25 years ago.
Obviously there are unlimited examples, even without resorting to cotton kings and railroad barons.

I wasn't referring to history as much as today. The gap between rich and not rich, and the advantages the rich have been able to secure for preferred paradigms that protect themselves via a corrupt political system, have never been greater in our history. You can roll out all the examples you did, but they are from another era. Anti-trust law enforcement has atrophied so much that it's hard to believe any laws to curb anti-competitive practices even exist.

We live in an oligopoly-dominated world now.  As an entrepreneur who will not compromise my values, I know just how hard it is to even gain traction in a world dominated by oligopolies when you offer a different paradigm, let alone became a market leader in them as a new company.

Can anyone make a credible argument to me that the Pac-12 or whatever it calls itself is ever going to be one of the two best college football conference from here on out? The SEC and Big Ten aren't going to stop pushing the envelope to get bigger and better. I want to see the argument for how this is going to happen. Put that case forward and I will retract my statement that was

[GK3]

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.

This cynical comment is so absurd that perhaps it doesn't merit a response, but I'm still surprised that nobody has commented. The entire economic history of the United States is literally based on entrepreneurship and industry disruption. But in case we need obvious examples:

I suppose IBM with 85% market share in the personal computer market at one point could never be toppled by upstarts founded in garages, to the point that they eventually stop manufacturing the product entirely.
I suppose it's impossible for General Motors (just under 50% market share in 1980) to have sold fewer cars in the US last year than Toyota (6% market share at the time).
I suppose it would be impossible for Altavista not to continue to reign supreme in the search engine space, just as MySpace will indefinitely exploit its dominance of the social media segment.
Inconceivable that taxi medallions won't make their owners richer every year since it's impossible for an alternative mode of mass market private transportation to emerge.
Unbelievable that movie studios wouldn't continue to print money, and that the most successful studio of them all (MGM) would have to declare bankruptcy and be acquired by an online retailer and content streamer.
Pan Am, TWA and Eastern not only don't dominate U.S. air travel, they don't even exist anymore. The airline with the highest market cap in the world is Southwest, which was basically a regional airline until about 25 years ago.
Obviously there are unlimited examples, even without resorting to cotton kings and railroad barons.

I wasn't referring to history as much as today. The gap between rich and not rich, and the advantages the rich have been able to secure for preferred paradigms that protect themselves via a corrupt political system, have never been greater in our history. You can roll out all the examples you did, but they are from another era. Anti-trust law enforcement has atrophied so much that it's hard to believe any laws to curb anti-competitive practices even exist.

We live in an oligopoly-dominated world now.  As an entrepreneur who will not compromise my values, I know just how hard it is to even gain traction in a world dominated by oligopolies when you offer a different paradigm, let alone became a market leader in them as a new company.

Can anyone make a credible argument to me that the Pac-12 or whatever it calls itself is ever going to be one of the two best college football conference from here on out? The SEC and Big Ten aren't going to stop pushing the envelope to get bigger and better. I want to see the argument for how this is going to happen. Put that case forward and I will retract my statement that was

I agree that football on the West Coast is never going to be the market that one finds in the Mid West or South. For reasons perhaps best left for academics to study, the sport simply doesn't seem to be as important as elsewhere.  Basically I do not see much change and a negative change more likely than a positive one.  With the advent of the NIL the rich get richer and I am sure a 5 star guy for whom academics is not all that important would prefer to play for an SEC school than one on the "West Coast.  We will continue to attract the guys who understand the long term importance of an education, but our recruiting is restricted by academic requirements.  This puts a premium on us hiring coaches who are top recruiters and top coaches.  This is a combination that is hard to find.

[GK3]

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.

This cynical comment is so absurd that perhaps it doesn't merit a response, but I'm still surprised that nobody has commented. The entire economic history of the United States is literally based on entrepreneurship and industry disruption. But in case we need obvious examples:

I suppose IBM with 85% market share in the personal computer market at one point could never be toppled by upstarts founded in garages, to the point that they eventually stop manufacturing the product entirely.
I suppose it's impossible for General Motors (just under 50% market share in 1980) to have sold fewer cars in the US last year than Toyota (6% market share at the time).
I suppose it would be impossible for Altavista not to continue to reign supreme in the search engine space, just as MySpace will indefinitely exploit its dominance of the social media segment.
Inconceivable that taxi medallions won't make their owners richer every year since it's impossible for an alternative mode of mass market private transportation to emerge.
Unbelievable that movie studios wouldn't continue to print money, and that the most successful studio of them all (MGM) would have to declare bankruptcy and be acquired by an online retailer and content streamer.
Pan Am, TWA and Eastern not only don't dominate U.S. air travel, they don't even exist anymore. The airline with the highest market cap in the world is Southwest, which was basically a regional airline until about 25 years ago.
Obviously there are unlimited examples, even without resorting to cotton kings and railroad barons.

I wasn't referring to history as much as today. The gap between rich and not rich, and the advantages the rich have been able to secure for preferred paradigms that protect themselves via a corrupt political system, have never been greater in our history. You can roll out all the examples you did, but they are from another era. Anti-trust law enforcement has atrophied so much that it's hard to believe any laws to curb anti-competitive practices even exist.

We live in an oligopoly-dominated world now.  As an entrepreneur who will not compromise my values, I know just how hard it is to even gain traction in a world dominated by oligopolies when you offer a different paradigm, let alone became a market leader in them as a new company.

Can anyone make a credible argument to me that the Pac-12 or whatever it calls itself is ever going to be one of the two best college football conference from here on out? The SEC and Big Ten aren't going to stop pushing the envelope to get bigger and better. I want to see the argument for how this is going to happen. Put that case forward and I will retract my statement that was

I agree that football on the West Coast is never going to be the market that one finds in the Mid West or South. For reasons perhaps best left for academics to study, the sport simply doesn't seem to be as important as elsewhere.  Basically I do not see much change and a negative change more likely than a positive one.  With the advent of the NIL the rich get richer and I am sure a 5 star guy for whom academics is not all that important would prefer to play for an SEC school than one on the "West Coast.  We will continue to attract the guys who understand the long term importance of an education, but our recruiting is restricted by academic requirements.  This puts a premium on us hiring coaches who are top recruiters and top coaches.  This is a combination that is hard to find.

[old spanish trail]

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.

This cynical comment is so absurd that perhaps it doesn't merit a response, but I'm still surprised that nobody has commented. The entire economic history of the United States is literally based on entrepreneurship and industry disruption. But in case we need obvious examples:

I suppose IBM with 85% market share in the personal computer market at one point could never be toppled by upstarts founded in garages, to the point that they eventually stop manufacturing the product entirely.
I suppose it's impossible for General Motors (just under 50% market share in 1980) to have sold fewer cars in the US last year than Toyota (6% market share at the time).
I suppose it would be impossible for Altavista not to continue to reign supreme in the search engine space, just as MySpace will indefinitely exploit its dominance of the social media segment.
Inconceivable that taxi medallions won't make their owners richer every year since it's impossible for an alternative mode of mass market private transportation to emerge.
Unbelievable that movie studios wouldn't continue to print money, and that the most successful studio of them all (MGM) would have to declare bankruptcy and be acquired by an online retailer and content streamer.
Pan Am, TWA and Eastern not only don't dominate U.S. air travel, they don't even exist anymore. The airline with the highest market cap in the world is Southwest, which was basically a regional airline until about 25 years ago.
Obviously there are unlimited examples, even without resorting to cotton kings and railroad barons.

I wasn't referring to history as much as today. The gap between rich and not rich, and the advantages the rich have been able to secure for preferred paradigms that protect themselves via a corrupt political system, have never been greater in our history. You can roll out all the examples you did, but they are from another era. Anti-trust law enforcement has atrophied so much that it's hard to believe any laws to curb anti-competitive practices even exist.

We live in an oligopoly-dominated world now.  As an entrepreneur who will not compromise my values, I know just how hard it is to even gain traction in a world dominated by oligopolies when you offer a different paradigm, let alone became a market leader in them as a new company.

Can anyone make a credible argument to me that the Pac-12 or whatever it calls itself is ever going to be one of the two best college football conference from here on out? The SEC and Big Ten aren't going to stop pushing the envelope to get bigger and better. I want to see the argument for how this is going to happen. Put that case forward and I will retract my statement that was

I agree that football on the West Coast is never going to be the market that one finds in the Mid West or South. For reasons perhaps best left for academics to study, the sport simply doesn't seem to be as important as elsewhere.  Basically I do not see much change and a negative change more likely than a positive one.  With the advent of the NIL the rich get richer and I am sure a 5 star guy for whom academics is not all that important would prefer to play for an SEC school than one on the "West Coast.  We will continue to attract the guys who understand the long term importance of an education, but our recruiting is restricted by academic requirements.  This puts a premium on us hiring coaches who are top recruiters and top coaches.  This is a combination that is hard to find.

Yep.

[old spanish trail]

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.

This cynical comment is so absurd that perhaps it doesn't merit a response, but I'm still surprised that nobody has commented. The entire economic history of the United States is literally based on entrepreneurship and industry disruption. But in case we need obvious examples:

I suppose IBM with 85% market share in the personal computer market at one point could never be toppled by upstarts founded in garages, to the point that they eventually stop manufacturing the product entirely.
I suppose it's impossible for General Motors (just under 50% market share in 1980) to have sold fewer cars in the US last year than Toyota (6% market share at the time).
I suppose it would be impossible for Altavista not to continue to reign supreme in the search engine space, just as MySpace will indefinitely exploit its dominance of the social media segment.
Inconceivable that taxi medallions won't make their owners richer every year since it's impossible for an alternative mode of mass market private transportation to emerge.
Unbelievable that movie studios wouldn't continue to print money, and that the most successful studio of them all (MGM) would have to declare bankruptcy and be acquired by an online retailer and content streamer.
Pan Am, TWA and Eastern not only don't dominate U.S. air travel, they don't even exist anymore. The airline with the highest market cap in the world is Southwest, which was basically a regional airline until about 25 years ago.
Obviously there are unlimited examples, even without resorting to cotton kings and railroad barons.

I wasn't referring to history as much as today. The gap between rich and not rich, and the advantages the rich have been able to secure for preferred paradigms that protect themselves via a corrupt political system, have never been greater in our history. You can roll out all the examples you did, but they are from another era. Anti-trust law enforcement has atrophied so much that it's hard to believe any laws to curb anti-competitive practices even exist.

We live in an oligopoly-dominated world now.  As an entrepreneur who will not compromise my values, I know just how hard it is to even gain traction in a world dominated by oligopolies when you offer a different paradigm, let alone became a market leader in them as a new company.

Can anyone make a credible argument to me that the Pac-12 or whatever it calls itself is ever going to be one of the two best college football conference from here on out? The SEC and Big Ten aren't going to stop pushing the envelope to get bigger and better. I want to see the argument for how this is going to happen. Put that case forward and I will retract my statement that was

I agree that football on the West Coast is never going to be the market that one finds in the Mid West or South. For reasons perhaps best left for academics to study, the sport simply doesn't seem to be as important as elsewhere.  Basically I do not see much change and a negative change more likely than a positive one.  With the advent of the NIL the rich get richer and I am sure a 5 star guy for whom academics is not all that important would prefer to play for an SEC school than one on the "West Coast.  We will continue to attract the guys who understand the long term importance of an education, but our recruiting is restricted by academic requirements.  This puts a premium on us hiring coaches who are top recruiters and top coaches.  This is a combination that is hard to find.

Yep.

[DC 86]

I wasn't referring to history as much as today. The gap between rich and not rich, and the advantages the rich have been able to secure for preferred paradigms that protect themselves via a corrupt political system, have never been greater in our history. You can roll out all the examples you did, but they are from another era. Anti-trust law enforcement has atrophied so much that it's hard to believe any laws to curb anti-competitive practices even exist.

We live in an oligopoly-dominated world now.  As an entrepreneur who will not compromise my values, I know just how hard it is to even gain traction in a world dominated by oligopolies when you offer a different paradigm, let alone became a market leader in them as a new company.

Can anyone make a credible argument to me that the Pac-12 or whatever it calls itself is ever going to be one of the two best college football conference from here on out? The SEC and Big Ten aren't going to stop pushing the envelope to get bigger and better. I want to see the argument for how this is going to happen. Put that case forward and I will retract my statement that was

I don't want to veer the thread any further into sociopolitical territory but the tech examples I gave are relatively recent, not ancient history. We'll have to agree to disagree, but I expect industries to continue to be disrupted and for unforeseen players to emerge and rise to the top in different segments, as has always happened in this country.

But focusing on college football, it very well may be that the SEC and Big-X will continue to dominate, but there's nothing structural preventing the Pac-12 or anyone else from challenging them, regardless of how popular the sport is in the south or midwest.

We are now in a Wild West era in which players are making their decisions based on NIL, with no transfer restrictions in place, with coaches changing schools at unprecedented rates. Conferences are defined by their top teams. USC is already flexing their muscle. If Stanford wanted to be a national power it could do so without drastically compromising its admissions standards. No FBS university has wealthier alumni. $40 million a year gets you elite high school recruits, a few elite transfers and an elite coaching staff. Oregon certainly has resources as well. There are cultural reasons why it probably won't happen, but it's not because a college football oligopoly prevents west coast schools from competing.

USC hasn't formed its collective yet, but you can bet it will be a powerful one. They've already invested on coaching with immediate recruiting/transfer effects. California remains a very fertile recruiting area. Recruits would love to stay in state if the money is available. We're not going to continue to see 26/30 of the top recruits in the state go to non-Pac 12 schools once conference schools start competing financially.

Again, it may or may not happen, but nothing structural prevents the Pac-12 from competing nationally. I expect USC to be a national title contender within a short amount of time, which will immediately raise the conference's profile. Whether UCLA, Oregon, Stanford and Washington follow - and they have the resources - remains to be seen. I'm not advocating for Stanford to necessarily compete financially, but we could if we wanted to, and other conference schools can too, and probably will. So far, the recent developments in the sport have been exploited by the SEC, but they actually present a threat to the SEC's dominance since it will benefit schools that have the will to compete financially. Schools that were hindered by their unwillingness to compete in attracting recruits with cash in McDonald's bags now find themselves on a level playing field in that respect.

[DC 86]

I wasn't referring to history as much as today. The gap between rich and not rich, and the advantages the rich have been able to secure for preferred paradigms that protect themselves via a corrupt political system, have never been greater in our history. You can roll out all the examples you did, but they are from another era. Anti-trust law enforcement has atrophied so much that it's hard to believe any laws to curb anti-competitive practices even exist.

We live in an oligopoly-dominated world now.  As an entrepreneur who will not compromise my values, I know just how hard it is to even gain traction in a world dominated by oligopolies when you offer a different paradigm, let alone became a market leader in them as a new company.

Can anyone make a credible argument to me that the Pac-12 or whatever it calls itself is ever going to be one of the two best college football conference from here on out? The SEC and Big Ten aren't going to stop pushing the envelope to get bigger and better. I want to see the argument for how this is going to happen. Put that case forward and I will retract my statement that was

I don't want to veer the thread any further into sociopolitical territory but the tech examples I gave are relatively recent, not ancient history. We'll have to agree to disagree, but I expect industries to continue to be disrupted and for unforeseen players to emerge and rise to the top in different segments, as has always happened in this country.

But focusing on college football, it very well may be that the SEC and Big-X will continue to dominate, but there's nothing structural preventing the Pac-12 or anyone else from challenging them, regardless of how popular the sport is in the south or midwest.

We are now in a Wild West era in which players are making their decisions based on NIL, with no transfer restrictions in place, with coaches changing schools at unprecedented rates. Conferences are defined by their top teams. USC is already flexing their muscle. If Stanford wanted to be a national power it could do so without drastically compromising its admissions standards. No FBS university has wealthier alumni. $40 million a year gets you elite high school recruits, a few elite transfers and an elite coaching staff. Oregon certainly has resources as well. There are cultural reasons why it probably won't happen, but it's not because a college football oligopoly prevents west coast schools from competing.

USC hasn't formed its collective yet, but you can bet it will be a powerful one. They've already invested on coaching with immediate recruiting/transfer effects. California remains a very fertile recruiting area. Recruits would love to stay in state if the money is available. We're not going to continue to see 26/30 of the top recruits in the state go to non-Pac 12 schools once conference schools start competing financially.

Again, it may or may not happen, but nothing structural prevents the Pac-12 from competing nationally. I expect USC to be a national title contender within a short amount of time, which will immediately raise the conference's profile. Whether UCLA, Oregon, Stanford and Washington follow - and they have the resources - remains to be seen. I'm not advocating for Stanford to necessarily compete financially, but we could if we wanted to, and other conference schools can too, and probably will. So far, the recent developments in the sport have been exploited by the SEC, but they actually present a threat to the SEC's dominance since it will benefit schools that have the will to compete financially. Schools that were hindered by their unwillingness to compete in attracting recruits with cash in McDonald's bags now find themselves on a level playing field in that respect.

[fullmetal]

I get the winners-win argument, I really do.  I mean, I live in soon-to-be-SEC country.  But prior to January 2017, did any of us think that F1 racing would be a winning investment in the United States?  Who thought there'd be a tv market for bowling, poker, billiards, darts, or cornhole?  Sports out of the public eye right now aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.  Larry Scott made some terrible calls (he wasn't ever equipped to be a commish anyway), and we are all paying the price for that now.

[fullmetal]

I get the winners-win argument, I really do.  I mean, I live in soon-to-be-SEC country.  But prior to January 2017, did any of us think that F1 racing would be a winning investment in the United States?  Who thought there'd be a tv market for bowling, poker, billiards, darts, or cornhole?  Sports out of the public eye right now aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.  Larry Scott made some terrible calls (he wasn't ever equipped to be a commish anyway), and we are all paying the price for that now.

[cardcrimson]

I get the winners-win argument, I really do.  I mean, I live in soon-to-be-SEC country.  But prior to January 2017, did any of us think that F1 racing would be a winning investment in the United States?  Who thought there'd be a tv market for bowling, poker, billiards, darts, or cornhole?  Sports out of the public eye right now aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.  Larry Scott made some terrible calls (he wasn't ever equipped to be a commish anyway), and we are all paying the price for that now.

Ten years ago, maybe even as recently as seven or eight, the Pac-12 was certainly a top football conference. Maybe not at SEC level, but probably the second strongest. What happened? A series of blunders, Larry Scott, Bernie, the revolving doors at SC, fiascos at UCLA, CAL and Washington. Can the conference get back to prominence in this NIL day and age. I think no. Nobody seems to care anymore.

[cardcrimson]

I get the winners-win argument, I really do.  I mean, I live in soon-to-be-SEC country.  But prior to January 2017, did any of us think that F1 racing would be a winning investment in the United States?  Who thought there'd be a tv market for bowling, poker, billiards, darts, or cornhole?  Sports out of the public eye right now aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.  Larry Scott made some terrible calls (he wasn't ever equipped to be a commish anyway), and we are all paying the price for that now.

Ten years ago, maybe even as recently as seven or eight, the Pac-12 was certainly a top football conference. Maybe not at SEC level, but probably the second strongest. What happened? A series of blunders, Larry Scott, Bernie, the revolving doors at SC, fiascos at UCLA, CAL and Washington. Can the conference get back to prominence in this NIL day and age. I think no. Nobody seems to care anymore.

[gailtate]

I get the winners-win argument, I really do.  I mean, I live in soon-to-be-SEC country.  But prior to January 2017, did any of us think that F1 racing would be a winning investment in the United States?  Who thought there'd be a tv market for bowling, poker, billiards, darts, or cornhole?  Sports out of the public eye right now aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.  Larry Scott made some terrible calls (he wasn't ever equipped to be a commish anyway), and we are all paying the price for that now.

Ten years ago, maybe even as recently as seven or eight, the Pac-12 was certainly a top football conference. Maybe not at SEC level, but probably the second strongest. What happened? A series of blunders, Larry Scott, Bernie, the revolving doors at SC, fiascos at UCLA, CAL and Washington. Can the conference get back to prominence in this NIL day and age. I think no. Nobody seems to care anymore.

When you think about it the Pac8, 10 and 12 were never football conferences that captured the national imagination. They were propped up mainly by USC (and to a lesser degree Washington) during the McKay '60s through the Pete Carroll '00s.

[gailtate]

I get the winners-win argument, I really do.  I mean, I live in soon-to-be-SEC country.  But prior to January 2017, did any of us think that F1 racing would be a winning investment in the United States?  Who thought there'd be a tv market for bowling, poker, billiards, darts, or cornhole?  Sports out of the public eye right now aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.  Larry Scott made some terrible calls (he wasn't ever equipped to be a commish anyway), and we are all paying the price for that now.

Ten years ago, maybe even as recently as seven or eight, the Pac-12 was certainly a top football conference. Maybe not at SEC level, but probably the second strongest. What happened? A series of blunders, Larry Scott, Bernie, the revolving doors at SC, fiascos at UCLA, CAL and Washington. Can the conference get back to prominence in this NIL day and age. I think no. Nobody seems to care anymore.

When you think about it the Pac8, 10 and 12 were never football conferences that captured the national imagination. They were propped up mainly by USC (and to a lesser degree Washington) during the McKay '60s through the Pete Carroll '00s.

[gailtate]

I get the winners-win argument, I really do.  I mean, I live in soon-to-be-SEC country.  But prior to January 2017, did any of us think that F1 racing would be a winning investment in the United States?  Who thought there'd be a tv market for bowling, poker, billiards, darts, or cornhole?  Sports out of the public eye right now aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.  Larry Scott made some terrible calls (he wasn't ever equipped to be a commish anyway), and we are all paying the price for that now.

So how does some shmendrick like a Larry Scott wind up a lottery winner here?  Who were the visionary geniuses who championed and vetted this in-over-his-pinhead incompetent?
(posted by gailtate)




Ten years ago, maybe even as recently as seven or eight, the Pac-12 was certainly a top football conference. Maybe not at SEC level, but probably the second strongest. What happened? A series of blunders, Larry Scott, Bernie, the revolving doors at SC, fiascos at UCLA, CAL and Washington. Can the conference get back to prominence in this NIL day and age. I think no. Nobody seems to care anymore.

When you think about it the Pac8, 10 and 12 were never football conferences that captured the national imagination. They were propped up mainly by USC (and to a lesser degree Washington) during the McKay '60s through the Pete Carroll '00s. Most seasons, most of the other programs were fair-to-middling (to downright bad).

[gailtate]

I get the winners-win argument, I really do.  I mean, I live in soon-to-be-SEC country.  But prior to January 2017, did any of us think that F1 racing would be a winning investment in the United States?  Who thought there'd be a tv market for bowling, poker, billiards, darts, or cornhole?  Sports out of the public eye right now aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.  Larry Scott made some terrible calls (he wasn't ever equipped to be a commish anyway), and we are all paying the price for that now.

So how does some shmendrick like a Larry Scott wind up a lottery winner here?  Who were the visionary geniuses who championed and vetted this in-over-his-pinhead incompetent?
(posted by gailtate)




Ten years ago, maybe even as recently as seven or eight, the Pac-12 was certainly a top football conference. Maybe not at SEC level, but probably the second strongest. What happened? A series of blunders, Larry Scott, Bernie, the revolving doors at SC, fiascos at UCLA, CAL and Washington. Can the conference get back to prominence in this NIL day and age. I think no. Nobody seems to care anymore.

When you think about it the Pac8, 10 and 12 were never football conferences that captured the national imagination. They were propped up mainly by USC (and to a lesser degree Washington) during the McKay '60s through the Pete Carroll '00s. Most seasons, most of the other programs were fair-to-middling (to downright bad).

[cardcrimson]

I get the winners-win argument, I really do.  I mean, I live in soon-to-be-SEC country.  But prior to January 2017, did any of us think that F1 racing would be a winning investment in the United States?  Who thought there'd be a tv market for bowling, poker, billiards, darts, or cornhole?  Sports out of the public eye right now aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.  Larry Scott made some terrible calls (he wasn't ever equipped to be a commish anyway), and we are all paying the price for that now.

Ten years ago, maybe even as recently as seven or eight, the Pac-12 was certainly a top football conference. Maybe not at SEC level, but probably the second strongest. What happened? A series of blunders, Larry Scott, Bernie, the revolving doors at SC, fiascos at UCLA, CAL and Washington. Can the conference get back to prominence in this NIL day and age. I think no. Nobody seems to care anymore.

Unfortunately, called this pretty close. Didn't expect it to be a month or so later. 

and to quote gailtate: "So how does some shmendrick like a Larry Scott wind up a lottery winner here?  Who were the visionary geniuses who championed and vetted this in-over-his-pinhead incompetent?" (posted by gailtate)

[cardcrimson]

I get the winners-win argument, I really do.  I mean, I live in soon-to-be-SEC country.  But prior to January 2017, did any of us think that F1 racing would be a winning investment in the United States?  Who thought there'd be a tv market for bowling, poker, billiards, darts, or cornhole?  Sports out of the public eye right now aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.  Larry Scott made some terrible calls (he wasn't ever equipped to be a commish anyway), and we are all paying the price for that now.

Ten years ago, maybe even as recently as seven or eight, the Pac-12 was certainly a top football conference. Maybe not at SEC level, but probably the second strongest. What happened? A series of blunders, Larry Scott, Bernie, the revolving doors at SC, fiascos at UCLA, CAL and Washington. Can the conference get back to prominence in this NIL day and age. I think no. Nobody seems to care anymore.

Unfortunately, called this pretty close. Didn't expect it to be a month or so later. 

and to quote gailtate: "So how does some shmendrick like a Larry Scott wind up a lottery winner here?  Who were the visionary geniuses who championed and vetted this in-over-his-pinhead incompetent?" (posted by gailtate)

[newguy]

I get the winners-win argument, I really do.  I mean, I live in soon-to-be-SEC country.  But prior to January 2017, did any of us think that F1 racing would be a winning investment in the United States?  Who thought there'd be a tv market for bowling, poker, billiards, darts, or cornhole?  Sports out of the public eye right now aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.  Larry Scott made some terrible calls (he wasn't ever equipped to be a commish anyway), and we are all paying the price for that now.

Ten years ago, maybe even as recently as seven or eight, the Pac-12 was certainly a top football conference. Maybe not at SEC level, but probably the second strongest. What happened? A series of blunders, Larry Scott, Bernie, the revolving doors at SC, fiascos at UCLA, CAL and Washington. Can the conference get back to prominence in this NIL day and age. I think no. Nobody seems to care anymore.

Unfortunately, called this pretty close. Didn't expect it to be a month or so later. 

and to quote gailtate: "So how does some shmendrick like a Larry Scott wind up a lottery winner here?  Who were the visionary geniuses who championed and vetted this in-over-his-pinhead incompetent?" (posted by gailtate)

if there's one old thread that deserved a bump, it's this one.

[newguy]

I get the winners-win argument, I really do.  I mean, I live in soon-to-be-SEC country.  But prior to January 2017, did any of us think that F1 racing would be a winning investment in the United States?  Who thought there'd be a tv market for bowling, poker, billiards, darts, or cornhole?  Sports out of the public eye right now aren't necessarily consigned to the dustbin of irrelevance.  Larry Scott made some terrible calls (he wasn't ever equipped to be a commish anyway), and we are all paying the price for that now.

Ten years ago, maybe even as recently as seven or eight, the Pac-12 was certainly a top football conference. Maybe not at SEC level, but probably the second strongest. What happened? A series of blunders, Larry Scott, Bernie, the revolving doors at SC, fiascos at UCLA, CAL and Washington. Can the conference get back to prominence in this NIL day and age. I think no. Nobody seems to care anymore.

Unfortunately, called this pretty close. Didn't expect it to be a month or so later. 

and to quote gailtate: "So how does some shmendrick like a Larry Scott wind up a lottery winner here?  Who were the visionary geniuses who championed and vetted this in-over-his-pinhead incompetent?" (posted by gailtate)

if there's one old thread that deserved a bump, it's this one.

[OutsiderFan]

Now y'all know why I was so adamant the Pac-12 never had a prayer to catch up to the SEC and Big Ten. So tired of the Larry Scott bashing. As if anyone else in charge of the conference would have led to a different outcome. And since we're bashing commissioners, how about Scott's replacement?  Did you see the humiliating statement that came out of the conference office in reaction to losing two essential members without even knowing it was happening? I won't even post it was so embarrassingly bad. At least when Texas and Oklahoma left the Big 12, it took a few weeks before it was finalized. Kliavkoff is so incompetent the day it became public USC and UCLA would leave, it was a done deal. 

I must admit I didn't expect UCLA to bolt, but USC was no surprise. What is surprising is to learn the UC Regents don't make Cal and UCLA a package deal in these kinds of situations. Just really a terrible look IMO, for a UC school to basically partner with a private school. Really, really bad.

This earthquake is also why I have been so exasperated with Stanford and Cal's indifference and lack of urgency to win in Football and MBB. And Stanford, my gawd, they even had the fortune to have risen from the ashes of irrelevance in football, to potentially become a consistent nationally relevant program (something near impossible to do) and they pissed it all away in deference to David Shaw, a head coach who didn't have the urgency or motivation to keep Stanford on top if doing so made him uncomfortable.

Now, Stanford may not have wanted to go to the Big Ten and be a sports whore like USC and UCLA, but at least had they acted with urgency on the Football and MBB programs, they would have at least been an attractive option to be poached and brought some media value.

Stanford, and especially Cal, do not have the cultures or people in place to navigate this moment in any way other than to be passed by. That may be by choice, but I see Cal much less capable of surviving the fallout of being in a smaller conference than Stanford.

[OutsiderFan]

Now y'all know why I was so adamant the Pac-12 never had a prayer to catch up to the SEC and Big Ten. So tired of the Larry Scott bashing. As if anyone else in charge of the conference would have led to a different outcome. And since we're bashing commissioners, how about Scott's replacement?  Did you see the humiliating statement that came out of the conference office in reaction to losing two essential members without even knowing it was happening? I won't even post it was so embarrassingly bad. At least when Texas and Oklahoma left the Big 12, it took a few weeks before it was finalized. Kliavkoff is so incompetent the day it became public USC and UCLA would leave, it was a done deal. 

I must admit I didn't expect UCLA to bolt, but USC was no surprise. What is surprising is to learn the UC Regents don't make Cal and UCLA a package deal in these kinds of situations. Just really a terrible look IMO, for a UC school to basically partner with a private school. Really, really bad.

This earthquake is also why I have been so exasperated with Stanford and Cal's indifference and lack of urgency to win in Football and MBB. And Stanford, my gawd, they even had the fortune to have risen from the ashes of irrelevance in football, to potentially become a consistent nationally relevant program (something near impossible to do) and they pissed it all away in deference to David Shaw, a head coach who didn't have the urgency or motivation to keep Stanford on top if doing so made him uncomfortable.

Now, Stanford may not have wanted to go to the Big Ten and be a sports whore like USC and UCLA, but at least had they acted with urgency on the Football and MBB programs, they would have at least been an attractive option to be poached and brought some media value.

Stanford, and especially Cal, do not have the cultures or people in place to navigate this moment in any way other than to be passed by. That may be by choice, but I see Cal much less capable of surviving the fallout of being in a smaller conference than Stanford.

[Giants]

I don’t understand why some people think the Regents should get involved in issues pertaining to the conference membership of UC schools.  It is a decision that should be made based upon the interests of each specific campus.  

Berkeley will lose no stature academically should the athletic department fold up and UCLA will not gain any academically notoriety should they choose to spend millions more on the athletic program.  

The Regents should be focusing their attention on academic  policy decisions that impact the entire system and not worry about whether Rutgers or Oregon State travels to southern California in the fall.

[Giants]

I don’t understand why some people think the Regents should get involved in issues pertaining to the conference membership of UC schools.  It is a decision that should be made based upon the interests of each specific campus.  

Berkeley will lose no stature academically should the athletic department fold up and UCLA will not gain any academically notoriety should they choose to spend millions more on the athletic program.  

The Regents should be focusing their attention on academic  policy decisions that impact the entire system and not worry about whether Rutgers or Oregon State travels to southern California in the fall.

[OutsiderFan]

I don’t understand why some people think the Regents should get involved in issues pertaining to the conference membership of UC schools.  It is a decision that should be made based upon the interests of each specific campus.  

Berkeley will lose no stature academically should the athletic department fold up and UCLA will not gain any academically notoriety should they choose to spend millions more on the athletic program.  

The Regents should be focusing their attention on academic  policy decisions that impact the entire system and not worry about whether Rutgers or Oregon State travels to southern California in the fall.

That's not the real world. Money rules everything. Cal's academic profile will absolutely be impacted if it has no sports programs, and so too will diversity on campus, and myriad of other issues. The UC Regents can't just focus on academics and otherwise live in a vacuum.

[OutsiderFan]

I don’t understand why some people think the Regents should get involved in issues pertaining to the conference membership of UC schools.  It is a decision that should be made based upon the interests of each specific campus.  

Berkeley will lose no stature academically should the athletic department fold up and UCLA will not gain any academically notoriety should they choose to spend millions more on the athletic program.  

The Regents should be focusing their attention on academic  policy decisions that impact the entire system and not worry about whether Rutgers or Oregon State travels to southern California in the fall.

That's not the real world. Money rules everything. Cal's academic profile will absolutely be impacted if it has no sports programs, and so too will diversity on campus, and myriad of other issues. The UC Regents can't just focus on academics and otherwise live in a vacuum.

[Goose]

I don’t understand why some people think the Regents should get involved in issues pertaining to the conference membership of UC schools.  It is a decision that should be made based upon the interests of each specific campus.  

Berkeley will lose no stature academically should the athletic department fold up and UCLA will not gain any academically notoriety should they choose to spend millions more on the athletic program.  

The Regents should be focusing their attention on academic  policy decisions that impact the entire system and not worry about whether Rutgers or Oregon State travels to southern California in the fall.

That's not the real world. Money rules everything. Cal's academic profile will absolutely be impacted if it has no sports programs, and so too will diversity on campus, and myriad of other issues. The UC Regents can't just focus on academics and otherwise live in a vacuum.

I agree about money, but not necessarily your reasoning. However, one of the "myriad of other issues" is that any action that reduces the ability of Kal to make money, which the UCLA action certainly does, potentially will create a need for the State to replace said money at Kal. Therefore, the Regents have a duty to evaluate that situation and take appropriate action if necessary. At best, they are equally surprised as the rest of us and should call a TO to see if this action is feasible/desirable from the State's point of view.

[Goose]

I don’t understand why some people think the Regents should get involved in issues pertaining to the conference membership of UC schools.  It is a decision that should be made based upon the interests of each specific campus.  

Berkeley will lose no stature academically should the athletic department fold up and UCLA will not gain any academically notoriety should they choose to spend millions more on the athletic program.  

The Regents should be focusing their attention on academic  policy decisions that impact the entire system and not worry about whether Rutgers or Oregon State travels to southern California in the fall.

That's not the real world. Money rules everything. Cal's academic profile will absolutely be impacted if it has no sports programs, and so too will diversity on campus, and myriad of other issues. The UC Regents can't just focus on academics and otherwise live in a vacuum.

I agree about money, but not necessarily your reasoning. However, one of the "myriad of other issues" is that any action that reduces the ability of Kal to make money, which the UCLA action certainly does, potentially will create a need for the State to replace said money at Kal. Therefore, the Regents have a duty to evaluate that situation and take appropriate action if necessary. At best, they are equally surprised as the rest of us and should call a TO to see if this action is feasible/desirable from the State's point of view.

[Giants]

I don’t understand why some people think the Regents should get involved in issues pertaining to the conference membership of UC schools.  It is a decision that should be made based upon the interests of each specific campus.  

Berkeley will lose no stature academically should the athletic department fold up and UCLA will not gain any academically notoriety should they choose to spend millions more on the athletic program.  

The Regents should be focusing their attention on academic  policy decisions that impact the entire system and not worry about whether Rutgers or Oregon State travels to southern California in the fall.

That's not the real world. Money rules everything. Cal's academic profile will absolutely be impacted if it has no sports programs, and so too will diversity on campus, and myriad of other issues. The UC Regents can't just focus on academics and otherwise live in a vacuum.

I think your response indicates a lack of understanding regarding the why individuals in this state select the college they attend.  I would suggest athletic prowess ranks at or near the bottom.  Heck, I would venture to say that 90% of students at Cal chose to enroll there without any consideration for whether Cal fielded a football team.  As for the diversity comment, are you serious? Cal is committed to the notion that the student body should reflect the demographics of the state. That will not change whether or not Cal has an athletic progra

Switching back to the school that prompts us to post here, do you think Stanford would lose its preeminent academic standing if they folded the athletic department? Of course not. Quite frankly, I don’t believe any of the top academic schools in the country would experience any loss from an academic perspective if they shut down their athletic program.

[Giants]

I don’t understand why some people think the Regents should get involved in issues pertaining to the conference membership of UC schools.  It is a decision that should be made based upon the interests of each specific campus.  

Berkeley will lose no stature academically should the athletic department fold up and UCLA will not gain any academically notoriety should they choose to spend millions more on the athletic program.  

The Regents should be focusing their attention on academic  policy decisions that impact the entire system and not worry about whether Rutgers or Oregon State travels to southern California in the fall.

That's not the real world. Money rules everything. Cal's academic profile will absolutely be impacted if it has no sports programs, and so too will diversity on campus, and myriad of other issues. The UC Regents can't just focus on academics and otherwise live in a vacuum.

I think your response indicates a lack of understanding regarding the why individuals in this state select the college they attend.  I would suggest athletic prowess ranks at or near the bottom.  Heck, I would venture to say that 90% of students at Cal chose to enroll there without any consideration for whether Cal fielded a football team.  As for the diversity comment, are you serious? Cal is committed to the notion that the student body should reflect the demographics of the state. That will not change whether or not Cal has an athletic progra

Switching back to the school that prompts us to post here, do you think Stanford would lose its preeminent academic standing if they folded the athletic department? Of course not. Quite frankly, I don’t believe any of the top academic schools in the country would experience any loss from an academic perspective if they shut down their athletic program.

[cardcrimson]

So you don't think anybody could have stop the demise of the Pac-12? How about someone who wasn't so arrogant and focused on appearances they might be able to think strategically. The move from Walnut Creek to San Francisco just to have fancier offices and a better zip code was pretty indicative early on. The stubbornness regarding the Pac-12 Network prevented millions of viewers to have access. Then the games were so late, those  that could watch them, were already asleep. The simple fact that Lars couldn't watch the Pac-12 Network at his own East Bay country club should have given him a hint there may be an issue, but no. (Note, I belong to the same club--they get DirecTV).

How often has Bill Walton talked about the Conference of Champions and for how long? It wouldn't have taken a first year student at the GSB to figure out how to market that extremely well. Sadly, it is no more. 

And it is Larry's fault.

---

Switching back to the school that prompts us to post here, do you think Stanford would lose its preeminent academic standing if they folded the athletic department?  Of course not.  Quite frankly, I don’t believe any of the top academic schools in the country would experience any loss from an academic perspective if they shut down their athletic program.

I'm not sure I agree. It seems that great students are driven to excel, in academics as well as other areas including athletics. If you take away athletics from Stanford, I think you'd lose a lot of students who make the place special, and I think the academic standing may take a hit, or at least would be changed.

[cardcrimson]

So you don't think anybody could have stop the demise of the Pac-12? How about someone who wasn't so arrogant and focused on appearances they might be able to think strategically. The move from Walnut Creek to San Francisco just to have fancier offices and a better zip code was pretty indicative early on. The stubbornness regarding the Pac-12 Network prevented millions of viewers to have access. Then the games were so late, those  that could watch them, were already asleep. The simple fact that Lars couldn't watch the Pac-12 Network at his own East Bay country club should have given him a hint there may be an issue, but no. (Note, I belong to the same club--they get DirecTV).

How often has Bill Walton talked about the Conference of Champions and for how long? It wouldn't have taken a first year student at the GSB to figure out how to market that extremely well. Sadly, it is no more. 

And it is Larry's fault.

---

Switching back to the school that prompts us to post here, do you think Stanford would lose its preeminent academic standing if they folded the athletic department?  Of course not.  Quite frankly, I don’t believe any of the top academic schools in the country would experience any loss from an academic perspective if they shut down their athletic program.

I'm not sure I agree. It seems that great students are driven to excel, in academics as well as other areas including athletics. If you take away athletics from Stanford, I think you'd lose a lot of students who make the place special, and I think the academic standing may take a hit, or at least would be changed.

[fullmetal]

I'm with cardcrimson.  Larry Scott's piss-poor decision-making took the Pac-12 out of any position to adapt/compete with the rest of the landscape.  It's Kliavkoff who I feel bad for, being dealt a rebuilding hand and then now a sucker punch, which, perhaps he should have seen coming?  But none of us did, and neither did the internet, so it must have been kept tightly under wraps (and the obvious upsides were not perceived as being worth severing historical/geographic ties).

A guy who only ever knew the world of professional tennis, yeah no.  I guess we can also put this on the university presidents for lacking the foresight to hire someone better.

[fullmetal]

I'm with cardcrimson.  Larry Scott's piss-poor decision-making took the Pac-12 out of any position to adapt/compete with the rest of the landscape.  It's Kliavkoff who I feel bad for, being dealt a rebuilding hand and then now a sucker punch, which, perhaps he should have seen coming?  But none of us did, and neither did the internet, so it must have been kept tightly under wraps (and the obvious upsides were not perceived as being worth severing historical/geographic ties).

A guy who only ever knew the world of professional tennis, yeah no.  I guess we can also put this on the university presidents for lacking the foresight to hire someone better.