[Phogge]

I give it about three days and somebody will post that the doom and gloom on this board is killing recruiting. Happened on the Bootleg. LOL.

[Phogge]

I give it about three days and somebody will post that the doom and gloom on this board is killing recruiting. Happened on the Bootleg. LOL.

[Softball Fan]

"In all candor, I believe this could mark the beginning of the end of major college football for the Bay Area schools. Their relatively low value within the college football marketplace is one reason for that bleak outlook."

I heard Cal is planning to repurpose its stadium to house the homeless.

[Softball Fan]

"In all candor, I believe this could mark the beginning of the end of major college football for the Bay Area schools. Their relatively low value within the college football marketplace is one reason for that bleak outlook."

I heard Cal is planning to repurpose its stadium to house the homeless.

[BostonCard]

Pac-12 mailbag: Kliavkoff’s culpability, expansion options, WSU’s connections and more
July 2, 2022 at 11:56 am Updated July 2, 2022 at 11:58 am
Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff speaks during Pac-12 Conference NCAA college basketball media day in October of 2021 in San Francisco. (Jeff Chiu / AP)

Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff speaks during Pac-12 Conference NCAA college... (Jeff Chiu / AP)More
Skip Ad
Jon Wilner By Jon Wilner
Bay Area News Group

He cuts deeply, but he is right.

BC

[BostonCard]

Pac-12 mailbag: Kliavkoff’s culpability, expansion options, WSU’s connections and more
July 2, 2022 at 11:56 am Updated July 2, 2022 at 11:58 am
Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff speaks during Pac-12 Conference NCAA college basketball media day in October of 2021 in San Francisco. (Jeff Chiu / AP)

Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff speaks during Pac-12 Conference NCAA college... (Jeff Chiu / AP)More
Skip Ad
Jon Wilner By Jon Wilner
Bay Area News Group

He cuts deeply, but he is right.

BC

[Mick]

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is the perfect off ramp for Stanford football.

Agree completely.  The psychic bill has been getting bigger for years.  I said good bye to my alma mater's team, I suspect I may be on the verge of saying goodbye to Stanford's team.  C'est la vie.

---

From an economic perspective, non-revenue sports are a massive business. Not at the college level, per se, but at the youth level. Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Competitive Dance, Swim, Water Polo, etc etc etc. all have of immense proportions participation across the country. You can't go to a hotel on a weekend and not have it filled with traveling teams. What happens if those sports vanish at the collegiate level?

Valid question, but in most cases I think the answer is "Not much changes.". The vast, vast majority of the kids participating in those High School and lower programs have neither the talent or the desire to participate at the college level. These are fun activities to do as a kid. You know (in most cases) you are too slow, too short, too weak, too something to compete at the next level. Yes, a few kids can, but most can't, know they can't, yet they show up at the travel tournaments and compete anyway.

I think a lot changes, if this becomes pervasive. They don't have the talent, true, but they have that dream.  If they lose the dream, they will do something else.  Club LAX, club volleyball, club fill-in-the-blank will all go away, or be greatly diminished.

---

* Stanford probably has the most attractive profile of any other remaining Pac team for the Big Ten given Oregon and Washington's "poison pills."

I think Stanford and Notre Dame would make for an interesting pairing in the Big Ten.

Personally, the Pac will be dead to me if any of Boise, SDSU, Fresno, SJS, Nevada, UNLV, or BYU are in the same conference with Stanford.

I'm not a fan of any of those schools.  I'd rather see Stanford dial it back a notch and join the Ivy League.

Or how about this...an Ivy West league...Stanford, Cal, Vandy, Northwestern, etc.

---

It will be interesting to see if USC and UCLA look to their former conference members to fill out their 2024 out of conference football schedules and beyond. Do they try to stay connected to UW, UO, Cal, Stanford or one or two of the others? 

To me, the question is whether the former Pac-12 members decide to play USC or UCLA after their betrayal, particularly road games.  F that.

[Mick]

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is the perfect off ramp for Stanford football.

Agree completely.  The psychic bill has been getting bigger for years.  I said good bye to my alma mater's team, I suspect I may be on the verge of saying goodbye to Stanford's team.  C'est la vie.

---

From an economic perspective, non-revenue sports are a massive business. Not at the college level, per se, but at the youth level. Baseball, Softball, Soccer, Competitive Dance, Swim, Water Polo, etc etc etc. all have of immense proportions participation across the country. You can't go to a hotel on a weekend and not have it filled with traveling teams. What happens if those sports vanish at the collegiate level?

Valid question, but in most cases I think the answer is "Not much changes.". The vast, vast majority of the kids participating in those High School and lower programs have neither the talent or the desire to participate at the college level. These are fun activities to do as a kid. You know (in most cases) you are too slow, too short, too weak, too something to compete at the next level. Yes, a few kids can, but most can't, know they can't, yet they show up at the travel tournaments and compete anyway.

I think a lot changes, if this becomes pervasive. They don't have the talent, true, but they have that dream.  If they lose the dream, they will do something else.  Club LAX, club volleyball, club fill-in-the-blank will all go away, or be greatly diminished.

---

* Stanford probably has the most attractive profile of any other remaining Pac team for the Big Ten given Oregon and Washington's "poison pills."

I think Stanford and Notre Dame would make for an interesting pairing in the Big Ten.

Personally, the Pac will be dead to me if any of Boise, SDSU, Fresno, SJS, Nevada, UNLV, or BYU are in the same conference with Stanford.

I'm not a fan of any of those schools.  I'd rather see Stanford dial it back a notch and join the Ivy League.

Or how about this...an Ivy West league...Stanford, Cal, Vandy, Northwestern, etc.

---

It will be interesting to see if USC and UCLA look to their former conference members to fill out their 2024 out of conference football schedules and beyond. Do they try to stay connected to UW, UO, Cal, Stanford or one or two of the others? 

To me, the question is whether the former Pac-12 members decide to play USC or UCLA after their betrayal, particularly road games.  F that.

[Mick]

I doubt that it would be religious reasons because we've played both Notre Dame and Boston College — and probably SCU back in the day.

Yes, probably.  Actually, Stanford has played Santa Clara 35 times, more than any university except the original Pac-8 schools and San Jose State. And one more than against Notre Dame, which has played Stanford 34 times.  ASU has played Stanford 32 times and Arizona 31 times.

[Mick]

I doubt that it would be religious reasons because we've played both Notre Dame and Boston College — and probably SCU back in the day.

Yes, probably.  Actually, Stanford has played Santa Clara 35 times, more than any university except the original Pac-8 schools and San Jose State. And one more than against Notre Dame, which has played Stanford 34 times.  ASU has played Stanford 32 times and Arizona 31 times.

[BostonCard]

... I have been getting increasingly disillusioned so while I wouldn’t say this is the straw that broke the camel’s back, it is for me a convenient excuse to disengage.

BC

Oh, please!

I believe you think you mean it, but in a couple months, when the whistles blow, you'll be right back at it. ;-)

You'll watch despite all of this and despite our hurtling toward another two- or three-win season.  It's a habit now, maybe even an addiction for some of us.

Yes, of course I would, but it would be out of inertia than because I was excited for what college football has become.  I don’t think that I would become a fan now.

BC

[BostonCard]

... I have been getting increasingly disillusioned so while I wouldn’t say this is the straw that broke the camel’s back, it is for me a convenient excuse to disengage.

BC

Oh, please!

I believe you think you mean it, but in a couple months, when the whistles blow, you'll be right back at it. ;-)

You'll watch despite all of this and despite our hurtling toward another two- or three-win season.  It's a habit now, maybe even an addiction for some of us.

Yes, of course I would, but it would be out of inertia than because I was excited for what college football has become.  I don’t think that I would become a fan now.

BC

[grendalor]

I think there may be a perception difference between scheduling an OOC game (even a series of them) with a school, on the one hand, and establishing an enduring, semi-permanent financial/athletic partnership with them (which is what a conference is), on the other.  It implies a level of approval by virtue of established affiliation that is significantly higher, I believe.  

I'm not saying that this issue is determinative of why a B12/Pac12 merger may not be in the cards.   At this point I don't think that a potential megamerger between the B12 and the Pac12 has enough "there" there, in terms of the teams that are remaining, for it to really work and/or be interesting to the main participants regardless of any issues like the religious/culture/values and or academic/AAU issues -- but I think it's in the mix for certain in the current environment.

Ditch Shaw, ditch Haase, ditch Muir, or blame Larry and/or USC and/or Texas.  It just doesn't matter.   The demos are all wrong.  Perhaps the best evidence of the problem emerged when Shaw was winning.  Remember when David Shaw took Stanford to the second Pac-12 CG and no one came to a Friday night game at Stanford because...(insert excuses here)?   Whatever excuse you use, it is exactly the type of thing a super conference wants to avoid.

Yeah.  The B1G already has Northwestern, which has similar attendance characteristics to Stanford -- large metro area, diverse population, small alum base, most of the large local population not interested in your athletics program unless tied to the school in another way.  Heck there are more fans and alums of other B1G schools in Chicagoland than of NU (my son just graduated from NU).  They know the drill when it comes to schools like this, and although Stanford brings things to the table that NU does not (higher academics, much more athletic breadth and quality), I doubt that most of the other schools in the B1G see the value of adding 1-2 more Northwestern type schools to the conference from a purely athletics/revenue perspective.

[grendalor]

I think there may be a perception difference between scheduling an OOC game (even a series of them) with a school, on the one hand, and establishing an enduring, semi-permanent financial/athletic partnership with them (which is what a conference is), on the other.  It implies a level of approval by virtue of established affiliation that is significantly higher, I believe.  

I'm not saying that this issue is determinative of why a B12/Pac12 merger may not be in the cards.   At this point I don't think that a potential megamerger between the B12 and the Pac12 has enough "there" there, in terms of the teams that are remaining, for it to really work and/or be interesting to the main participants regardless of any issues like the religious/culture/values and or academic/AAU issues -- but I think it's in the mix for certain in the current environment.

Ditch Shaw, ditch Haase, ditch Muir, or blame Larry and/or USC and/or Texas.  It just doesn't matter.   The demos are all wrong.  Perhaps the best evidence of the problem emerged when Shaw was winning.  Remember when David Shaw took Stanford to the second Pac-12 CG and no one came to a Friday night game at Stanford because...(insert excuses here)?   Whatever excuse you use, it is exactly the type of thing a super conference wants to avoid.

Yeah.  The B1G already has Northwestern, which has similar attendance characteristics to Stanford -- large metro area, diverse population, small alum base, most of the large local population not interested in your athletics program unless tied to the school in another way.  Heck there are more fans and alums of other B1G schools in Chicagoland than of NU (my son just graduated from NU).  They know the drill when it comes to schools like this, and although Stanford brings things to the table that NU does not (higher academics, much more athletic breadth and quality), I doubt that most of the other schools in the B1G see the value of adding 1-2 more Northwestern type schools to the conference from a purely athletics/revenue perspective.

[Phogge]

Stanford dropping football would be a big story for a couple of days and then will be forgotten quickly. Reality is that if that happens after a year nobody who once cared will care. If Shaw had kept the ball rolling maybe two years.

UCLA is going to be smoked permanently.

[Phogge]

Stanford dropping football would be a big story for a couple of days and then will be forgotten quickly. Reality is that if that happens after a year nobody who once cared will care. If Shaw had kept the ball rolling maybe two years.

UCLA is going to be smoked permanently.

[OutsiderFan]

Between the sarcasm, whoa as us, holier than thou, grasping at straws, and otherwise fatalist sentiments being expressed in this thread, sometimes it's good to just look at facts that matter and draw conclusions without emotion, just logic. This is strictly from a Big Ten perspective, but it makes oodles of sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U8Rommye18&t=895s

[OutsiderFan]

Between the sarcasm, whoa as us, holier than thou, grasping at straws, and otherwise fatalist sentiments being expressed in this thread, sometimes it's good to just look at facts that matter and draw conclusions without emotion, just logic. This is strictly from a Big Ten perspective, but it makes oodles of sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U8Rommye18&t=895s

[Softball Fan]

I doubt that it would be religious reasons because we've played both Notre Dame and Boston College — and probably SCU back in the day.

The times they are A-Changin'.   With the topic of abortion front and center I expect many in the Cal administration and faculty would object to Cal being in a conference with Texas Christian.  Different philosophy about an important issue. Stanford maybe not so much a problem.  Money could overrule objections from those on the Cal campus or the UC Regents.   I do not advocate any position on this topic.  However if my comment is viewed as verging on the political, please delete.

Clemson and Florida State are far more appealing to the Big Ten than Stanford from a football viewpoint.  IMO the stars would have to perfectly align for Stanford to get into the B1G.

1) Notre Dame take a long time to make a decision.
2) In the meantime Clemson, Florida State, and other big football schools make commitments elsewhere.
3) Stanford has a miracle 2022 season and gets a major bowl bid. 
4) Notre Dame decides to join the Big Ten and states a preference for Stanford as its travel partner.

There are reasons for ND to not join the Big Ten. The risk exists of losing 2 or 3 games every season and taking itself out of consideration for playoff. ND as an independent can make its own schedule and place cupcakes between tough games. The goal is no losses or at most one loss each season. If the playoff was open to more teams this would be less of a factor.

[Softball Fan]

I doubt that it would be religious reasons because we've played both Notre Dame and Boston College — and probably SCU back in the day.

The times they are A-Changin'.   With the topic of abortion front and center I expect many in the Cal administration and faculty would object to Cal being in a conference with Texas Christian.  Different philosophy about an important issue. Stanford maybe not so much a problem.  Money could overrule objections from those on the Cal campus or the UC Regents.   I do not advocate any position on this topic.  However if my comment is viewed as verging on the political, please delete.

Clemson and Florida State are far more appealing to the Big Ten than Stanford from a football viewpoint.  IMO the stars would have to perfectly align for Stanford to get into the B1G.

1) Notre Dame take a long time to make a decision.
2) In the meantime Clemson, Florida State, and other big football schools make commitments elsewhere.
3) Stanford has a miracle 2022 season and gets a major bowl bid. 
4) Notre Dame decides to join the Big Ten and states a preference for Stanford as its travel partner.

There are reasons for ND to not join the Big Ten. The risk exists of losing 2 or 3 games every season and taking itself out of consideration for playoff. ND as an independent can make its own schedule and place cupcakes between tough games. The goal is no losses or at most one loss each season. If the playoff was open to more teams this would be less of a factor.

[BostonCard]

Between the sarcasm, whoa as us, holier than thou, grasping at straws, and otherwise fatalist sentiments being expressed in this thread, sometimes it's good to just look at facts that matter and draw conclusions without emotion, just logic.

LOL at the complaints that people are being “holier than thou”.

As with any loss, people are at different stages of grief about the demise of the PAC-12 generally and Stanford football specifically, but it’s ok for people to come to terms with it in their own way.  There’s no need for you, or anyone else, to tell people how they are supposed to feel here.

BC

[BostonCard]

Between the sarcasm, whoa as us, holier than thou, grasping at straws, and otherwise fatalist sentiments being expressed in this thread, sometimes it's good to just look at facts that matter and draw conclusions without emotion, just logic.

LOL at the complaints that people are being “holier than thou”.

As with any loss, people are at different stages of grief about the demise of the PAC-12 generally and Stanford football specifically, but it’s ok for people to come to terms with it in their own way.  There’s no need for you, or anyone else, to tell people how they are supposed to feel here.

BC

[TreesAndBirds]

I enjoyed this article from a Pennsylvania columnist predicting and hoping that USC/UCLA fail in the Big10. 
Maybe Im in a stage of grief.

https://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootba...jones.html

[TreesAndBirds]

I enjoyed this article from a Pennsylvania columnist predicting and hoping that USC/UCLA fail in the Big10. 
Maybe Im in a stage of grief.

https://www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootba...jones.html

[needle]

How far fetched is it that the PAC gets a Billionaire (Bezos) Bailout, by which I mean that Amazon Prime pays for 5-10 years of PAC-10 media rights at 4x or 5x of market value?

That’s probably the only type of thing that would save the conference. I would not dismiss it outright.

[needle]

How far fetched is it that the PAC gets a Billionaire (Bezos) Bailout, by which I mean that Amazon Prime pays for 5-10 years of PAC-10 media rights at 4x or 5x of market value?

That’s probably the only type of thing that would save the conference. I would not dismiss it outright.

[cardcrimson]

How far fetched is it that the PAC gets a Billionaire (Bezos) Bailout, by which I mean that Amazon Prime pays for 5-10 years of PAC-10 media rights at 4x or 5x of market value?

That’s probably the only type of thing that would save the conference. I would not dismiss it outright.

The Pac-10 by Nike, available on Amazon Prime. Hmmmm. . . .

At least more people could get it than they do now

[cardcrimson]

How far fetched is it that the PAC gets a Billionaire (Bezos) Bailout, by which I mean that Amazon Prime pays for 5-10 years of PAC-10 media rights at 4x or 5x of market value?

That’s probably the only type of thing that would save the conference. I would not dismiss it outright.

The Pac-10 by Nike, available on Amazon Prime. Hmmmm. . . .

At least more people could get it than they do now

[oldguy]

Unless a suitable conference alignment is cobbled together, maybe this is an opportunity to go independent and expand the media department to cover and publicize more of staff, students, and alumni, and related topics, to handle our own media rights, through streaming and networks, and push ahead as a world-class institution in academics and athletics. 
I don’t think the average American understands Stanford’s uniqueness. I know I didn’t when I applied to Stanford and the Ivy’s over 50 years ago.

[oldguy]

Unless a suitable conference alignment is cobbled together, maybe this is an opportunity to go independent and expand the media department to cover and publicize more of staff, students, and alumni, and related topics, to handle our own media rights, through streaming and networks, and push ahead as a world-class institution in academics and athletics. 
I don’t think the average American understands Stanford’s uniqueness. I know I didn’t when I applied to Stanford and the Ivy’s over 50 years ago.

[TrumpCard]

How far fetched is it that the PAC gets a Billionaire (Bezos) Bailout, by which I mean that Amazon Prime pays for 5-10 years of PAC-10 media rights at 4x or 5x of market value?

That’s probably the only type of thing that would save the conference. I would not dismiss it outright.

The Pac-10 by Nike, available on Amazon Prime. Hmmmm. . . .

At least more people could get it than they do now

The “pacific” is not a selling point. Make it more inclusive of other regions. The Nike-10 by Amazon or the Amazon-10 by Nike (depending on which pays more).

[TrumpCard]

How far fetched is it that the PAC gets a Billionaire (Bezos) Bailout, by which I mean that Amazon Prime pays for 5-10 years of PAC-10 media rights at 4x or 5x of market value?

That’s probably the only type of thing that would save the conference. I would not dismiss it outright.

The Pac-10 by Nike, available on Amazon Prime. Hmmmm. . . .

At least more people could get it than they do now

The “pacific” is not a selling point. Make it more inclusive of other regions. The Nike-10 by Amazon or the Amazon-10 by Nike (depending on which pays more).

[jonnyss]

do the other sports have to go with football?  travel is so problematic for sports that play multiple games per week.

by comparison, isn't women's pro soccer looking to unbundle itself from men's in the next tv contract.

yes, the tv rights would be smaller, but football revenue can still subsidize the other sports.

[jonnyss]

do the other sports have to go with football?  travel is so problematic for sports that play multiple games per week.

by comparison, isn't women's pro soccer looking to unbundle itself from men's in the next tv contract.

yes, the tv rights would be smaller, but football revenue can still subsidize the other sports.

[JeffInCorvallis]

Interesting analysis and brings up some factors I hadn't considered like where alums live.

Is the B1G likely to stick with insistence on AAU membership? Notre Dame is not a member and has obviously been on their radar for a while.

Isn't the football series between Stanford and ND dead after 2024?

[JeffInCorvallis]

Interesting analysis and brings up some factors I hadn't considered like where alums live.

Is the B1G likely to stick with insistence on AAU membership? Notre Dame is not a member and has obviously been on their radar for a while.

Isn't the football series between Stanford and ND dead after 2024?

[81alum]

do the other sports have to go with football?  travel is so problematic for sports that play multiple games per week.

by comparison, isn't women's pro soccer looking to unbundle itself from men's in the next tv contract.

yes, the tv rights would be smaller, but football revenue can still subsidize the other sports.

Exactly. 

Football has become its own beast and needs to be separated from all other sports.  Let everyone keep their traditional leagues for non-football--which should hardly matter since other than March Madness there is so little money in them.  Then the cancerous corruption of football money can be dealt with in isolation.

Why would anyone want to force all the non-football teams into such an arrangement?  I don't see how it benefits the rich or the poor.

[81alum]

do the other sports have to go with football?  travel is so problematic for sports that play multiple games per week.

by comparison, isn't women's pro soccer looking to unbundle itself from men's in the next tv contract.

yes, the tv rights would be smaller, but football revenue can still subsidize the other sports.

Exactly. 

Football has become its own beast and needs to be separated from all other sports.  Let everyone keep their traditional leagues for non-football--which should hardly matter since other than March Madness there is so little money in them.  Then the cancerous corruption of football money can be dealt with in isolation.

Why would anyone want to force all the non-football teams into such an arrangement?  I don't see how it benefits the rich or the poor.

[Mick]

Unless a suitable conference alignment is cobbled together, maybe this is an opportunity to go independent and expand the media department to cover and publicize more of staff, students, and alumni, and related topics, to handle our own media rights, through streaming and networks, and push ahead as a world-class institution in academics and athletics. 
I don’t think the average American understands Stanford’s uniqueness. I know I didn’t when I applied to Stanford and the Ivy’s over 50 years ago.

You're right.  Stanford's too good for the Pac-12.  Probably not, when UCLA and USC was part of it.  Now, the only academic institution in the range is Cal.  That's it.  Time to go independent.

[Mick]

Unless a suitable conference alignment is cobbled together, maybe this is an opportunity to go independent and expand the media department to cover and publicize more of staff, students, and alumni, and related topics, to handle our own media rights, through streaming and networks, and push ahead as a world-class institution in academics and athletics. 
I don’t think the average American understands Stanford’s uniqueness. I know I didn’t when I applied to Stanford and the Ivy’s over 50 years ago.

You're right.  Stanford's too good for the Pac-12.  Probably not, when UCLA and USC was part of it.  Now, the only academic institution in the range is Cal.  That's it.  Time to go independent.