[BigJohn043]

I’m not sure why Notre Dame should give much more of an iota of thought for whether Stanford is or is not in the conference.

Like everyone in this sordid affair, their calcula will be driven almost entirely by money, and Stanford’s existence doesn’t factor into that.

BC

TV money is probably the most important driver.  And in the SEC it is the only driver.  But the B10 is different.  They really do care about the research university thing and the other considerations.

With USC/UCLA they got both. Money was the primary driver but they are also strong academic and research schools. No one else out there brings both. Some maybe they stand pat but if they add ND they will need one more....

[BigJohn043]

I’m not sure why Notre Dame should give much more of an iota of thought for whether Stanford is or is not in the conference.

Like everyone in this sordid affair, their calcula will be driven almost entirely by money, and Stanford’s existence doesn’t factor into that.

BC

TV money is probably the most important driver.  And in the SEC it is the only driver.  But the B10 is different.  They really do care about the research university thing and the other considerations.

With USC/UCLA they got both. Money was the primary driver but they are also strong academic and research schools. No one else out there brings both. Some maybe they stand pat but if they add ND they will need one more....

[needle]

I think it's wrong to say money is the only driver for the SEC.

I have thought a lot about the Northwest schools going to the SEC, which would get to one-up the Big 10 by making such a move.

I think it makes sense for the Northwest schools if you think (probably rightly) that the Big 10 only really wants to expand if it gets Notre Dame. 

OSU and WSU, at least with WSU's ag focus, have a tinge of the qualities that make up SEC culture, I think.

But politics just absolutely scuttles the idea on both sides.

[needle]

I think it's wrong to say money is the only driver for the SEC.

I have thought a lot about the Northwest schools going to the SEC, which would get to one-up the Big 10 by making such a move.

I think it makes sense for the Northwest schools if you think (probably rightly) that the Big 10 only really wants to expand if it gets Notre Dame. 

OSU and WSU, at least with WSU's ag focus, have a tinge of the qualities that make up SEC culture, I think.

But politics just absolutely scuttles the idea on both sides.

[Mick]

Apparently "religious tolerance" is selective.

I agree with what I take as the tenor of your comment.  I find it hard to believe that Stanford is so narrow minded that it would not be in a conference with “religious” schools. I recognize that we’ve become more than a tad parochial in NorCal But I don’t think we’ve gone to outright bigotry.

Especially after playing Notre Dame 34 times...

[Mick]

Apparently "religious tolerance" is selective.

I agree with what I take as the tenor of your comment.  I find it hard to believe that Stanford is so narrow minded that it would not be in a conference with “religious” schools. I recognize that we’ve become more than a tad parochial in NorCal But I don’t think we’ve gone to outright bigotry.

Especially after playing Notre Dame 34 times...

[81alum]

The worst case Pac-12 scenario is unfolding. The Big XII is looking to add Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and ASU this week apparently.

That will leave Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State in the Pac. Not sustainable, and not worth expanding either.

Oregon State and Washington State have no value for the Big Ten, but they will for the Mountain West, so they likely end up there, devastated at no longer being in major college sports. 

That leaves Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington ripe for the Big Ten, and would make USCLA quite happy.

The guy who produced the video I posted theorizes the Big Ten will take UW, Cal, Stanford, Notre Dame or Oregon. I don't know why the B1G wouldn't take all five. 

Stanford doesn't need to compete with the same win at all costs mentality as its super conference peers to be guaranteed a bunch of revenue. Rich people are rich because they get others to pay them. Nobody knows how to get paid more than Stanford.

Here is something to think about.

Whatever happens this year will not be likely to last.  Now that all traditions are blown to bits one can expect a scramble each time a school sees greener grass.  I rather suspect that UCLA and USC will be miserable in their new league.  At least the students will be, and when those two schools realize that their W/L record in football takes a hit when most of their away games put them at a giant disadvantage (think Stanford v. Northwestern 2015 over and over and over) and in a few years they may have buyer's remorse.  Then think of all their non-revenue teams complaining--WBB, etc.  For most sports other than football the travel and competition will both be significantly worse.  UCLA in particular will regret its decision, with oodles of bad will coming its way from the State of California, which pays most of its bills.  Will UCLA in particular be content to be beaten down in football, year after year, for the sake of a better annual payout from its league?  Will its recruiting suffer accordingly? 

Of course, by the time they regret their decision, there won't be a Pac-12 to come back to. 

We get to look forward to many, many years of unsettled ferment.  But tradition was one of the key ingredients in the fan enjoyment of college football.  As tradition gets destroyed--over and over--the goose that has laid the golden egg will sicken.

[81alum]

The worst case Pac-12 scenario is unfolding. The Big XII is looking to add Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and ASU this week apparently.

That will leave Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State in the Pac. Not sustainable, and not worth expanding either.

Oregon State and Washington State have no value for the Big Ten, but they will for the Mountain West, so they likely end up there, devastated at no longer being in major college sports. 

That leaves Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington ripe for the Big Ten, and would make USCLA quite happy.

The guy who produced the video I posted theorizes the Big Ten will take UW, Cal, Stanford, Notre Dame or Oregon. I don't know why the B1G wouldn't take all five. 

Stanford doesn't need to compete with the same win at all costs mentality as its super conference peers to be guaranteed a bunch of revenue. Rich people are rich because they get others to pay them. Nobody knows how to get paid more than Stanford.

Here is something to think about.

Whatever happens this year will not be likely to last.  Now that all traditions are blown to bits one can expect a scramble each time a school sees greener grass.  I rather suspect that UCLA and USC will be miserable in their new league.  At least the students will be, and when those two schools realize that their W/L record in football takes a hit when most of their away games put them at a giant disadvantage (think Stanford v. Northwestern 2015 over and over and over) and in a few years they may have buyer's remorse.  Then think of all their non-revenue teams complaining--WBB, etc.  For most sports other than football the travel and competition will both be significantly worse.  UCLA in particular will regret its decision, with oodles of bad will coming its way from the State of California, which pays most of its bills.  Will UCLA in particular be content to be beaten down in football, year after year, for the sake of a better annual payout from its league?  Will its recruiting suffer accordingly? 

Of course, by the time they regret their decision, there won't be a Pac-12 to come back to. 

We get to look forward to many, many years of unsettled ferment.  But tradition was one of the key ingredients in the fan enjoyment of college football.  As tradition gets destroyed--over and over--the goose that has laid the golden egg will sicken.

[BigJohn043]

I think it's wrong to say money is the only driver for the SEC.

I have thought a lot about the Northwest schools going to the SEC, which would get to one-up the Big 10 by making such a move.

I think it makes sense for the Northwest schools if you think (probably rightly) that the Big 10 only really wants to expand if it gets Notre Dame. 

OSU and WSU, at least with WSU's ag focus, have a tinge of the qualities that make up SEC culture, I think.

But politics just absolutely scuttles the idea on both sides.

Having been in the Southeast for over 25 years I just can't imagine the SEC even thinking about adding UO or UW.  Not even in the consideration set.  It would both cost them a bunch of money and the schools would have literally no interest in traveling to the NW.

[BigJohn043]

I think it's wrong to say money is the only driver for the SEC.

I have thought a lot about the Northwest schools going to the SEC, which would get to one-up the Big 10 by making such a move.

I think it makes sense for the Northwest schools if you think (probably rightly) that the Big 10 only really wants to expand if it gets Notre Dame. 

OSU and WSU, at least with WSU's ag focus, have a tinge of the qualities that make up SEC culture, I think.

But politics just absolutely scuttles the idea on both sides.

Having been in the Southeast for over 25 years I just can't imagine the SEC even thinking about adding UO or UW.  Not even in the consideration set.  It would both cost them a bunch of money and the schools would have literally no interest in traveling to the NW.

[Goose]

We get to look forward to many, many years of unsettled ferment.  But tradition was one of the key ingredients in the fan enjoyment of college football.  As tradition gets destroyed--over and over--the goose that has laid the golden egg will sicken.

I think that goose is unfortunately dead, cooked, and devoured. Traditions do evolve, but that evolution takes time. At one time Kal actually was more of a rival to Stanford than U$C. Hasn't been the case for years, but it also took years to adjust that relationship. The current entirely money-driven football system requires quick changes by the participants. Traditions can't change that fast and are thus destroyed. No way around it.

[Goose]

We get to look forward to many, many years of unsettled ferment.  But tradition was one of the key ingredients in the fan enjoyment of college football.  As tradition gets destroyed--over and over--the goose that has laid the golden egg will sicken.

I think that goose is unfortunately dead, cooked, and devoured. Traditions do evolve, but that evolution takes time. At one time Kal actually was more of a rival to Stanford than U$C. Hasn't been the case for years, but it also took years to adjust that relationship. The current entirely money-driven football system requires quick changes by the participants. Traditions can't change that fast and are thus destroyed. No way around it.

[TonyLima]

The irreplaceable Jon Wilner Has some thoughts.

[TonyLima]

The irreplaceable Jon Wilner Has some thoughts.

[Phogge]

Paywall.

[Phogge]

Paywall.

[cardcrimson]

Having been in the Southeast for over 25 years I just can't imagine the SEC even thinking about adding UO or UW.  Not even in the consideration set.  It would both cost them a bunch of money and the schools would have literally no interest in traveling to the NW.

What he said. There's a higher chance of Shaw adding an independent thinking OC and letting him/her do the play calling.

[cardcrimson]

Having been in the Southeast for over 25 years I just can't imagine the SEC even thinking about adding UO or UW.  Not even in the consideration set.  It would both cost them a bunch of money and the schools would have literally no interest in traveling to the NW.

What he said. There's a higher chance of Shaw adding an independent thinking OC and letting him/her do the play calling.

[Maple Leaf]

The LA Times has an article on how usc-ucla joining the big 10 will impact non-revenue/Olympic sports for each school.  Could be a paywall article.

Not much discussion regarding travel issues. In many of the sports the LA schools will benefit being in the big 10 since that have not been able to win very many if any conference championships.

Wonder what coaches at usc-ucla are the most ticked off by the move to the big 10?

[Maple Leaf]

The LA Times has an article on how usc-ucla joining the big 10 will impact non-revenue/Olympic sports for each school.  Could be a paywall article.

Not much discussion regarding travel issues. In many of the sports the LA schools will benefit being in the big 10 since that have not been able to win very many if any conference championships.

Wonder what coaches at usc-ucla are the most ticked off by the move to the big 10?

[chrisk]

Paywall.

You can access Wilner through the Seattle Times website.

[chrisk]

Paywall.

You can access Wilner through the Seattle Times website.

[oldguy]

I don't know what the Stanford administration is thinking, but I do think we have some clues based on past history.


1) Stanford was once the school that was willing to enforce strict admissions criteria on its athletes even at the expense of success in football.



2) Stanford was once the school that was willing to cut numerous sports ostensibly for budget reasons but more probably because the percentage of student athletes was--in the minds of administration and faculty--excessive compared with the relatively small undergraduate student body.



3) Stanford feels far, far more connected to schools like the Ivies, MIT, CalTech and U Chicago than it does to most of the other schools of the Pac 12/10, which (other than Cal) never had much in common with Stanford's mission as an elite university.



In my mind, Stanford athletics reached a zenith when a rare combination came along of a supportive Admissions director (after 2005), competent Athletics Director (before 2012), a couple of football coaches who fit in their own ways within the unique Stanford culture (after 2007,) and an avid donor with very deep pockets who endowed pretty much every coaching job at the university (2006-2013 were Arillaga's biggest gifts.)  The identity and mission of the university was never going to deeply embrace athletics, but so long as athletics could pay for itself and have such splendid success the apathy abated and the intellectual crowd tolerated (and even enjoyed) the sideshow of sports. But this should never have concealed the fact that the culture was never, ever, going to be able to make the least sacrifice to the Stanford image as an ethical, elite, academic institution. 



With the latest developments--too numerous but all discussed at length on this board--I have a hard time imagining a way forward that will preserve the wonderful success we had with our athletics program over the last couple of decades.  External forces seem arrayed against our unique model.  But we also lack the internal leadership that we had at the beginning of this heyday.  I will hope that something gets worked out, since I want to enjoy the next couple of decades of retired life watching Stanford athletics flourish.  But I think I know the Stanford culture quite well, and it leaves me less and less optimistic.  I will be ecstatic to be wrong.

I basically agree with you. However, IMHO the Stanford you describe above may have drifted more than a bit from where it was in say 2000. Its academic identity seems to not be what it was "back in the day" and of less importance. The Presidents office hasn't exactly been a shining light of leadership under MTL and IMHO under Hennessy Stanford was more a corporation than a University. For that reason, past history may not be much of a guide. I worry that the leadership thinks not at all about this "problem".

Agreed. Very likely that Stanford falls back into being a West Coast Ivy, unless leadership steps up to move to the top of Academics and Athletics.

[oldguy]

I don't know what the Stanford administration is thinking, but I do think we have some clues based on past history.


1) Stanford was once the school that was willing to enforce strict admissions criteria on its athletes even at the expense of success in football.



2) Stanford was once the school that was willing to cut numerous sports ostensibly for budget reasons but more probably because the percentage of student athletes was--in the minds of administration and faculty--excessive compared with the relatively small undergraduate student body.



3) Stanford feels far, far more connected to schools like the Ivies, MIT, CalTech and U Chicago than it does to most of the other schools of the Pac 12/10, which (other than Cal) never had much in common with Stanford's mission as an elite university.



In my mind, Stanford athletics reached a zenith when a rare combination came along of a supportive Admissions director (after 2005), competent Athletics Director (before 2012), a couple of football coaches who fit in their own ways within the unique Stanford culture (after 2007,) and an avid donor with very deep pockets who endowed pretty much every coaching job at the university (2006-2013 were Arillaga's biggest gifts.)  The identity and mission of the university was never going to deeply embrace athletics, but so long as athletics could pay for itself and have such splendid success the apathy abated and the intellectual crowd tolerated (and even enjoyed) the sideshow of sports. But this should never have concealed the fact that the culture was never, ever, going to be able to make the least sacrifice to the Stanford image as an ethical, elite, academic institution. 



With the latest developments--too numerous but all discussed at length on this board--I have a hard time imagining a way forward that will preserve the wonderful success we had with our athletics program over the last couple of decades.  External forces seem arrayed against our unique model.  But we also lack the internal leadership that we had at the beginning of this heyday.  I will hope that something gets worked out, since I want to enjoy the next couple of decades of retired life watching Stanford athletics flourish.  But I think I know the Stanford culture quite well, and it leaves me less and less optimistic.  I will be ecstatic to be wrong.

I basically agree with you. However, IMHO the Stanford you describe above may have drifted more than a bit from where it was in say 2000. Its academic identity seems to not be what it was "back in the day" and of less importance. The Presidents office hasn't exactly been a shining light of leadership under MTL and IMHO under Hennessy Stanford was more a corporation than a University. For that reason, past history may not be much of a guide. I worry that the leadership thinks not at all about this "problem".

Agreed. Very likely that Stanford falls back into being a West Coast Ivy, unless leadership steps up to move to the top of Academics and Athletics.

[TrumpCard]

I hope someone will write "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Conference Reallignment."  U$C and UCLA will be in the Pac-12 for 2 more years (supposedly).  I'm hoping that McKee can carry Stanford back to the promised land this year.  I don't know about the QB position in 2023, but even that is too far in the future to consider in this changing environment.  2024, who knows?

[TrumpCard]

I hope someone will write "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Conference Reallignment."  U$C and UCLA will be in the Pac-12 for 2 more years (supposedly).  I'm hoping that McKee can carry Stanford back to the promised land this year.  I don't know about the QB position in 2023, but even that is too far in the future to consider in this changing environment.  2024, who knows?

[chrisk]

I don't know what the Stanford administration is thinking, but I do think we have some clues based on past history.


1) Stanford was once the school that was willing to enforce strict admissions criteria on its athletes even at the expense of success in football.



2) Stanford was once the school that was willing to cut numerous sports ostensibly for budget reasons but more probably because the percentage of student athletes was--in the minds of administration and faculty--excessive compared with the relatively small undergraduate student body.



3) Stanford feels far, far more connected to schools like the Ivies, MIT, CalTech and U Chicago than it does to most of the other schools of the Pac 12/10, which (other than Cal) never had much in common with Stanford's mission as an elite university.



In my mind, Stanford athletics reached a zenith when a rare combination came along of a supportive Admissions director (after 2005), competent Athletics Director (before 2012), a couple of football coaches who fit in their own ways within the unique Stanford culture (after 2007,) and an avid donor with very deep pockets who endowed pretty much every coaching job at the university (2006-2013 were Arillaga's biggest gifts.)  The identity and mission of the university was never going to deeply embrace athletics, but so long as athletics could pay for itself and have such splendid success the apathy abated and the intellectual crowd tolerated (and even enjoyed) the sideshow of sports. But this should never have concealed the fact that the culture was never, ever, going to be able to make the least sacrifice to the Stanford image as an ethical, elite, academic institution. 



With the latest developments--too numerous but all discussed at length on this board--I have a hard time imagining a way forward that will preserve the wonderful success we had with our athletics program over the last couple of decades.  External forces seem arrayed against our unique model.  But we also lack the internal leadership that we had at the beginning of this heyday.  I will hope that something gets worked out, since I want to enjoy the next couple of decades of retired life watching Stanford athletics flourish.  But I think I know the Stanford culture quite well, and it leaves me less and less optimistic.  I will be ecstatic to be wrong.

I basically agree with you. However, IMHO the Stanford you describe above may have drifted more than a bit from where it was in say 2000. Its academic identity seems to not be what it was "back in the day" and of less importance. The Presidents office hasn't exactly been a shining light of leadership under MTL and IMHO under Hennessy Stanford was more a corporation than a University. For that reason, past history may not be much of a guide. I worry that the leadership thinks not at all about this "problem".

Agreed. Very likely that Stanford falls back into being a West Coast Ivy, unless leadership steps up to move to the top of Academics and Athletics.

What if the new Pac-10 focuses on being the best that it can be within its new footprint. It is not clear that any of the members will have better options in the near future. It is also not clear that adding new schools will upgrade the conference, even financially, let alone reputationally. Being the #4 or #5 conference is a long way from being Ivy Leage West.

[chrisk]

I don't know what the Stanford administration is thinking, but I do think we have some clues based on past history.


1) Stanford was once the school that was willing to enforce strict admissions criteria on its athletes even at the expense of success in football.



2) Stanford was once the school that was willing to cut numerous sports ostensibly for budget reasons but more probably because the percentage of student athletes was--in the minds of administration and faculty--excessive compared with the relatively small undergraduate student body.



3) Stanford feels far, far more connected to schools like the Ivies, MIT, CalTech and U Chicago than it does to most of the other schools of the Pac 12/10, which (other than Cal) never had much in common with Stanford's mission as an elite university.



In my mind, Stanford athletics reached a zenith when a rare combination came along of a supportive Admissions director (after 2005), competent Athletics Director (before 2012), a couple of football coaches who fit in their own ways within the unique Stanford culture (after 2007,) and an avid donor with very deep pockets who endowed pretty much every coaching job at the university (2006-2013 were Arillaga's biggest gifts.)  The identity and mission of the university was never going to deeply embrace athletics, but so long as athletics could pay for itself and have such splendid success the apathy abated and the intellectual crowd tolerated (and even enjoyed) the sideshow of sports. But this should never have concealed the fact that the culture was never, ever, going to be able to make the least sacrifice to the Stanford image as an ethical, elite, academic institution. 



With the latest developments--too numerous but all discussed at length on this board--I have a hard time imagining a way forward that will preserve the wonderful success we had with our athletics program over the last couple of decades.  External forces seem arrayed against our unique model.  But we also lack the internal leadership that we had at the beginning of this heyday.  I will hope that something gets worked out, since I want to enjoy the next couple of decades of retired life watching Stanford athletics flourish.  But I think I know the Stanford culture quite well, and it leaves me less and less optimistic.  I will be ecstatic to be wrong.

I basically agree with you. However, IMHO the Stanford you describe above may have drifted more than a bit from where it was in say 2000. Its academic identity seems to not be what it was "back in the day" and of less importance. The Presidents office hasn't exactly been a shining light of leadership under MTL and IMHO under Hennessy Stanford was more a corporation than a University. For that reason, past history may not be much of a guide. I worry that the leadership thinks not at all about this "problem".

Agreed. Very likely that Stanford falls back into being a West Coast Ivy, unless leadership steps up to move to the top of Academics and Athletics.

What if the new Pac-10 focuses on being the best that it can be within its new footprint. It is not clear that any of the members will have better options in the near future. It is also not clear that adding new schools will upgrade the conference, even financially, let alone reputationally. Being the #4 or #5 conference is a long way from being Ivy Leage West.

[Softball Fan]

I don't know if anyone has posted this link yet.

https://pistolsfiringblog.com/big-12-to-...-colorado/

"The Big 12 is set to meet with Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado according to multiple reports."

"Notre Dame will presumably make a decision in the coming days and either join the Big Ten or remain independent."

I read through a couple threads on a Notre Dame sports message board.  About half the ND fans thought ND would go to the Big-10 and half thought they would stay independent.  Interestingly many of those who thought ND stays independent made the point ND could have joined a conference for more TV money over the past years but preferred independence over TV money.

---

https://kslsports.com/489123/could-utah-...e-big-xii/

I predict Utah and probably Colorado, but definitely Utah, bolt quickly to the Big-12.  In the Big-12 Utah can play BYU every season in almost every sport the two schools have a team and Utah can renew its rivalry with TCU. 

There still remain rumors SEC is possibly interested in Utah to expand its geographic footprint but I think Utah takes the first offer which likely will come from the Big-12.


As a random fact, BYU has to pay the WCC $500,000 for the Olympic sports to leave the conference. I don't know what the PAC-12 teams have to pay the conference to leave going forward.

[Softball Fan]

I don't know if anyone has posted this link yet.

https://pistolsfiringblog.com/big-12-to-...-colorado/

"The Big 12 is set to meet with Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and Colorado according to multiple reports."

"Notre Dame will presumably make a decision in the coming days and either join the Big Ten or remain independent."

I read through a couple threads on a Notre Dame sports message board.  About half the ND fans thought ND would go to the Big-10 and half thought they would stay independent.  Interestingly many of those who thought ND stays independent made the point ND could have joined a conference for more TV money over the past years but preferred independence over TV money.

---

https://kslsports.com/489123/could-utah-...e-big-xii/

I predict Utah and probably Colorado, but definitely Utah, bolt quickly to the Big-12.  In the Big-12 Utah can play BYU every season in almost every sport the two schools have a team and Utah can renew its rivalry with TCU. 

There still remain rumors SEC is possibly interested in Utah to expand its geographic footprint but I think Utah takes the first offer which likely will come from the Big-12.


As a random fact, BYU has to pay the WCC $500,000 for the Olympic sports to leave the conference. I don't know what the PAC-12 teams have to pay the conference to leave going forward.

[thunder_chik]

I really have no idea how this all shakes out.  Honestly, for anyone who loves tradition this is a sad, sad situation.  I cannot at all get excited about the possibility of Stanford joining the Big 10 or 12.

At this juncture, trying to maintain high academic standards/scholar-athlete ideals AND make money participating in the evolving D1 football universe (NIL, transfer portal, etc.) seem to be mutually exclusive pursuits.

A KISS formula in the short term could be for the Pac-10 to try to hold together, maybe adding Boise State and BYU.

[thunder_chik]

I really have no idea how this all shakes out.  Honestly, for anyone who loves tradition this is a sad, sad situation.  I cannot at all get excited about the possibility of Stanford joining the Big 10 or 12.

At this juncture, trying to maintain high academic standards/scholar-athlete ideals AND make money participating in the evolving D1 football universe (NIL, transfer portal, etc.) seem to be mutually exclusive pursuits.

A KISS formula in the short term could be for the Pac-10 to try to hold together, maybe adding Boise State and BYU.

[thatboy]

Perhaps an ignorant question, but could Stanford just go independent in Football, like Notre Dame did?

[thatboy]

Perhaps an ignorant question, but could Stanford just go independent in Football, like Notre Dame did?

[dabigv13]

Sure, but we don't have NBC like ND does, and whatever virtual streaming option we could come up with would bring in peanuts compared to the Pac12 TV contracts presently.

[dabigv13]

Sure, but we don't have NBC like ND does, and whatever virtual streaming option we could come up with would bring in peanuts compared to the Pac12 TV contracts presently.

[Mick]

At least the students will be, and when those two schools realize that their W/L record in football takes a hit when most of their away games put them at a giant disadvantage (think Stanford v. Northwestern 2015 over and over and over) and in a few years they may have buyer's remorse.  

I'm thinking Texas 69, Stanford 17 in a game played when Stanford players got up at 6 a.m. body clock time.

[Mick]

At least the students will be, and when those two schools realize that their W/L record in football takes a hit when most of their away games put them at a giant disadvantage (think Stanford v. Northwestern 2015 over and over and over) and in a few years they may have buyer's remorse.  

I'm thinking Texas 69, Stanford 17 in a game played when Stanford players got up at 6 a.m. body clock time.

[fullmetal]

Wonder what coaches at usc-ucla are the most ticked off by the move to the big 10?

Do the water polo teams care?  They'll probably end up as affiliates in their prior conferences.

Rowing won't be happy, lol.  They won't be in contention for the conference championship *and* they'll have ridiculous in-conference travel burdens.  Plus they'll keep losing to the Pac-12 powers to whom they previously lost.

Volleyball really won't be happy (have fun with Nebraska and Penn State, lol).

[fullmetal]

Wonder what coaches at usc-ucla are the most ticked off by the move to the big 10?

Do the water polo teams care?  They'll probably end up as affiliates in their prior conferences.

Rowing won't be happy, lol.  They won't be in contention for the conference championship *and* they'll have ridiculous in-conference travel burdens.  Plus they'll keep losing to the Pac-12 powers to whom they previously lost.

Volleyball really won't be happy (have fun with Nebraska and Penn State, lol).