[Giants]

https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/14/po...ig-ten-acc

16. Clemson
17. Stanford
18. UCLA

If true, Stanford probably can go independent for Football and make a decent amount of money for itself. This might make the most sense at this point until a Big Ten or ACC arrangement materializes.

Stanford could schedule:

Cal, Notre Dame, USC, UCLA, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Wake Forest, Army, Navy, and Air Force, maybe Rice, and then one powerhouse just to create an attraction at Stanford Stadium to sell tickets. Washington, Oregon, and any other Big Ten, SEC, or ACC that would make for a compelling opponent.

This doesn't address Bowl game affiliations. That's a discussion for another day.

Independence isn’t realistic without a broadcasting partner.  Without a significant contract to make every home football game available to a wide audience (see Notre Dame), the financials necessary to support the entire AD are not sustainable.  Once you take emotion out of the equation and look at the matter strictly with a cold eye concerned only about ROI, I don’t believe that Stanford meets the national football interest test. The Cardinal needs a strong conference affiliation.

[Giants]

https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/14/po...ig-ten-acc

16. Clemson
17. Stanford
18. UCLA

If true, Stanford probably can go independent for Football and make a decent amount of money for itself. This might make the most sense at this point until a Big Ten or ACC arrangement materializes.

Stanford could schedule:

Cal, Notre Dame, USC, UCLA, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Wake Forest, Army, Navy, and Air Force, maybe Rice, and then one powerhouse just to create an attraction at Stanford Stadium to sell tickets. Washington, Oregon, and any other Big Ten, SEC, or ACC that would make for a compelling opponent.

This doesn't address Bowl game affiliations. That's a discussion for another day.

Independence isn’t realistic without a broadcasting partner.  Without a significant contract to make every home football game available to a wide audience (see Notre Dame), the financials necessary to support the entire AD are not sustainable.  Once you take emotion out of the equation and look at the matter strictly with a cold eye concerned only about ROI, I don’t believe that Stanford meets the national football interest test. The Cardinal needs a strong conference affiliation.

[OutsiderFan]

I admittedly glossed over the TV rights stuff as it relates to Stanford Football being independent. My assumption is in this day and age there are creative ways to work around not having a dedicated TV partner like ND has with NBC. I'm not foolish enough to claim those work arounds would be adopted if imagined, but it is a possibility worth exploring, IMO.

[OutsiderFan]

I admittedly glossed over the TV rights stuff as it relates to Stanford Football being independent. My assumption is in this day and age there are creative ways to work around not having a dedicated TV partner like ND has with NBC. I'm not foolish enough to claim those work arounds would be adopted if imagined, but it is a possibility worth exploring, IMO.

[Canalejas]

I think that sounds potentially very successful. I wonder if Cal could do the same.  They'd probably want Stanford, USC, UCLA, Fresno State, Long Beach State, San Jose State, the occasional UC-Davis game, a Florida school, maybe Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada or Oregon, and their fellow large-scale public universities; e.g., Michigan once in a while, Texas, Washington, Virginia, etc., Hawaii (for the trip and to attract recruits).

Cal State Long Beach hasn't had a football team since 1991. I can't find any record of them ever playing over on winsipedia.  For that matter, it doesn't show us ever playing them either.  Does anyone know if we ever scheduled them or Cal State Fullerton?

[Canalejas]

I think that sounds potentially very successful. I wonder if Cal could do the same.  They'd probably want Stanford, USC, UCLA, Fresno State, Long Beach State, San Jose State, the occasional UC-Davis game, a Florida school, maybe Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada or Oregon, and their fellow large-scale public universities; e.g., Michigan once in a while, Texas, Washington, Virginia, etc., Hawaii (for the trip and to attract recruits).

Cal State Long Beach hasn't had a football team since 1991. I can't find any record of them ever playing over on winsipedia.  For that matter, it doesn't show us ever playing them either.  Does anyone know if we ever scheduled them or Cal State Fullerton?

[BobK]

We never played Long Beach or Fullerton

[BobK]

We never played Long Beach or Fullerton

[Softball Fan]

Newsom had no idea UCLA leaving PAC-12 until after it happened and he's mad.

“We already are looking into it, within minutes after reading about this in the newspaper.”

"I have strong opinions about this, for no other reason than as a member of the regents, we were never consulted, never asked for an opinion and they didn’t even have the decency to provide [a] heads-up.”

https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/15/ga...ve-big-ten

Newsom, who oversees and appoints the University of California system board of regents, told FOX 11 Los Angeles that UCLA officials gave no advance warning to the board of regents regarding a Big Ten decision Newsom says was "done in isolation" and without "oversight or support" from the group.

https://247sports.com/Article/Big-Ten-ex...190126692/

[Softball Fan]

Newsom had no idea UCLA leaving PAC-12 until after it happened and he's mad.

“We already are looking into it, within minutes after reading about this in the newspaper.”

"I have strong opinions about this, for no other reason than as a member of the regents, we were never consulted, never asked for an opinion and they didn’t even have the decency to provide [a] heads-up.”

https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/15/ga...ve-big-ten

Newsom, who oversees and appoints the University of California system board of regents, told FOX 11 Los Angeles that UCLA officials gave no advance warning to the board of regents regarding a Big Ten decision Newsom says was "done in isolation" and without "oversight or support" from the group.

https://247sports.com/Article/Big-Ten-ex...190126692/

[dabigv13]

Nice of him to speak up.....two weeks after the news!

I guess he finally got all the polling and focus group data to know what he should say (though it seems clear he doesn't really intend to do much of anything).

[dabigv13]

Nice of him to speak up.....two weeks after the news!

I guess he finally got all the polling and focus group data to know what he should say (though it seems clear he doesn't really intend to do much of anything).

[cardcrimson]

Nice of him to speak up.....two weeks after the news!

I guess he finally got all the polling and focus group data to know what he should say (though it seems clear he doesn't really intend to do much of anything).

My guess is the polling is telling him that California in the bag. Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Indiana are all up for grabs. After token dismay, he'll end up supporting UCLA's and USC's move. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Nice of him to speak up.....two weeks after the news!

I guess he finally got all the polling and focus group data to know what he should say (though it seems clear he doesn't really intend to do much of anything).

My guess is the polling is telling him that California in the bag. Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Indiana are all up for grabs. After token dismay, he'll end up supporting UCLA's and USC's move. . . .

[Goose]

Nice of him to speak up.....two weeks after the news!

I guess he finally got all the polling and focus group data to know what he should say (though it seems clear he doesn't really intend to do much of anything).

My guess is the polling is telling him that California in the bag. Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Indiana are all up for grabs. After token dismay, he'll end up supporting UCLA's and USC's move. . . .

I think he is even more clever. He will say "We can't do anything because the contract was signed by people who had the authority to do so. However, I don't like being kept in the dark (etc. etc.) so I am going to fire a few scapegoats to make sure it never happens again."

[Goose]

Nice of him to speak up.....two weeks after the news!

I guess he finally got all the polling and focus group data to know what he should say (though it seems clear he doesn't really intend to do much of anything).

My guess is the polling is telling him that California in the bag. Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Indiana are all up for grabs. After token dismay, he'll end up supporting UCLA's and USC's move. . . .

I think he is even more clever. He will say "We can't do anything because the contract was signed by people who had the authority to do so. However, I don't like being kept in the dark (etc. etc.) so I am going to fire a few scapegoats to make sure it never happens again."

[Mick]

I think that sounds potentially very successful. I wonder if Cal could do the same.  They'd probably want Stanford, USC, UCLA, Fresno State, Long Beach State, San Jose State, the occasional UC-Davis game, a Florida school, maybe Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada or Oregon, and their fellow large-scale public universities; e.g., Michigan once in a while, Texas, Washington, Virginia, etc., Hawaii (for the trip and to attract recruits).

Cal State Long Beach hasn't had a football team since 1991. I can't find any record of them ever playing over on winsipedia.  For that matter, it doesn't show us ever playing them either.  Does anyone know if we ever scheduled them or Cal State Fullerton?

Ugh, wishful thinking.  I meant San Diego State.

For CSU's, Stanford has played:

San Jose State (52-14-1, from 1900-2013). Pity we haven't played them in 9 years.
San Diego State (4-2, from 1985-2018)
Fresno State (3-0, from 1926-1928).
Sacramento State (1-0, 2010)

Never played Northridge (2001), Long Beach State (1991) or Fullerton State (1992), all of whom dropped D1 football, nor did Stanford play UC-Riverside (1975), UC-San Diego (1968) and UC Santa Barbara (1991), all of whom dropped football.

https://gostanford.com/documents/2021/8/...f?id=24789

[Mick]

I think that sounds potentially very successful. I wonder if Cal could do the same.  They'd probably want Stanford, USC, UCLA, Fresno State, Long Beach State, San Jose State, the occasional UC-Davis game, a Florida school, maybe Arizona, Arizona State, Nevada or Oregon, and their fellow large-scale public universities; e.g., Michigan once in a while, Texas, Washington, Virginia, etc., Hawaii (for the trip and to attract recruits).

Cal State Long Beach hasn't had a football team since 1991. I can't find any record of them ever playing over on winsipedia.  For that matter, it doesn't show us ever playing them either.  Does anyone know if we ever scheduled them or Cal State Fullerton?

Ugh, wishful thinking.  I meant San Diego State.

For CSU's, Stanford has played:

San Jose State (52-14-1, from 1900-2013). Pity we haven't played them in 9 years.
San Diego State (4-2, from 1985-2018)
Fresno State (3-0, from 1926-1928).
Sacramento State (1-0, 2010)

Never played Northridge (2001), Long Beach State (1991) or Fullerton State (1992), all of whom dropped D1 football, nor did Stanford play UC-Riverside (1975), UC-San Diego (1968) and UC Santa Barbara (1991), all of whom dropped football.

https://gostanford.com/documents/2021/8/...f?id=24789

[Canalejas]

It's an odd feeling that I'm having, with regionalism dying bit by bit, that maybe we should have played against those guys when they were still around. As much as I like the Pac-8 schools and SJSU, there was always something funny about a sports landscape that had us playing in Pullman but not Riverside, Corvallis but not Santa Barbara. Oh well, it's now nation-spanning leagues or bust.

[Canalejas]

It's an odd feeling that I'm having, with regionalism dying bit by bit, that maybe we should have played against those guys when they were still around. As much as I like the Pac-8 schools and SJSU, there was always something funny about a sports landscape that had us playing in Pullman but not Riverside, Corvallis but not Santa Barbara. Oh well, it's now nation-spanning leagues or bust.

[Giants]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...cially-end

It appears the only viable option left for the PAC-10 is status quo (and hope that none of the current membership defects).

[Giants]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...cially-end

It appears the only viable option left for the PAC-10 is status quo (and hope that none of the current membership defects).

[thatboy]

Has anyone visited USC or UCLA message boards and gauged how their fans feel about this? Just curious.

[thatboy]

Has anyone visited USC or UCLA message boards and gauged how their fans feel about this? Just curious.

[OutsiderFan]

If ESPN is the only bidder for Pac-10 TV rights, and the Pac-10 schools are desperate to get whatever they can, ESPN has all the leverage and can low ball the conference with a deal that gives member schools paltry payouts and results in falling further behind other conferences. The Pac-10 needs some way to counter this ESPN leverage, and it seems Cal and Stanford could provide it.

The Bay Area market is the most valuable in the Pac-10 footprint and will account for the most money in any TV deal. There have been estimates that Stanford's media rights are worth about $45M/yr, and Cal's are probably similar. This means Cal and Stanford have a lot of gravity in the negotiations with ESPN.

But Cal and Stanford are also two schools that don't put the football cart before the school horse. This means both schools could credibly threaten to drop football if ESPN low balls the Pac-10, and therefore create an "ESPN needs Cal and Stanford more than Cal and Stanford need ESPN's money" kind of dynamic. Maybe not as believable for Cal as Stanford, but still believable.

This move would force Arizona, ASU, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Utah to the Big 12 which ESPN may not have, locking ESPN out of west coast night games it covets.

Now, ESPN could balk and force the other 6 schools to the Big 12, but will ESPN take that risk of losing out on west coast night games? So the Pac-10 negotiators could really play up Cal and Stanford dropping out of D1 football as more than a threat, and have some real leverage with ESPN.

All negotiations between two parties are games of chicken, and no deal is worth doing if one party feels they are getting screwed. Cal and Stanford to me have a credible ability to threaten dropping football if the Pac-10 is lowballed by ESPN, and the Bay Area TV market is pretty much the only leverage the Pac-10 will have in negotiations.

Of course, I believe the best move for Cal and Stanford is to join the Big Ten, so they can be negotiating with the Big Ten, allowing the Pac-10 to use their rights as leverage in negotiations with ESPN, or could actually drop football if ESPN doesn't pay enough or the Big Ten says no.

And all this against the backdrop of the UC Board of Regents meeting on Thursday to discuss UCLA moving to the Big Ten. Who knows what happens there, but possible outcomes are: nothing to UCLA being blocked from going to the Big Ten, and lots in between, like ruling Cal and UCLA must be in same conference.

[OutsiderFan]

If ESPN is the only bidder for Pac-10 TV rights, and the Pac-10 schools are desperate to get whatever they can, ESPN has all the leverage and can low ball the conference with a deal that gives member schools paltry payouts and results in falling further behind other conferences. The Pac-10 needs some way to counter this ESPN leverage, and it seems Cal and Stanford could provide it.

The Bay Area market is the most valuable in the Pac-10 footprint and will account for the most money in any TV deal. There have been estimates that Stanford's media rights are worth about $45M/yr, and Cal's are probably similar. This means Cal and Stanford have a lot of gravity in the negotiations with ESPN.

But Cal and Stanford are also two schools that don't put the football cart before the school horse. This means both schools could credibly threaten to drop football if ESPN low balls the Pac-10, and therefore create an "ESPN needs Cal and Stanford more than Cal and Stanford need ESPN's money" kind of dynamic. Maybe not as believable for Cal as Stanford, but still believable.

This move would force Arizona, ASU, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Utah to the Big 12 which ESPN may not have, locking ESPN out of west coast night games it covets.

Now, ESPN could balk and force the other 6 schools to the Big 12, but will ESPN take that risk of losing out on west coast night games? So the Pac-10 negotiators could really play up Cal and Stanford dropping out of D1 football as more than a threat, and have some real leverage with ESPN.

All negotiations between two parties are games of chicken, and no deal is worth doing if one party feels they are getting screwed. Cal and Stanford to me have a credible ability to threaten dropping football if the Pac-10 is lowballed by ESPN, and the Bay Area TV market is pretty much the only leverage the Pac-10 will have in negotiations.

Of course, I believe the best move for Cal and Stanford is to join the Big Ten, so they can be negotiating with the Big Ten, allowing the Pac-10 to use their rights as leverage in negotiations with ESPN, or could actually drop football if ESPN doesn't pay enough or the Big Ten says no.

And all this against the backdrop of the UC Board of Regents meeting on Thursday to discuss UCLA moving to the Big Ten. Who knows what happens there, but possible outcomes are: nothing to UCLA being blocked from going to the Big Ten, and lots in between, like ruling Cal and UCLA must be in same conference.

[Goose]

As has been pointed out by many, the PAC-10 can go forward "viably" only if nobody else leaves. At some point all the members need to realize that. The idea that everybody should be in "secret" negotiations the B1G, the SEC, and God Know Who will destroy any way forward. They have to trust each other, because if they don't, school X will jump because they justifiably believe school Y is leaving and they must preempt the departure. It is a classic game theory problem. I am pretty sure that any new media contract is going to have a significant poison pill for anybody leaving and that this will somehow need to be passed on to the individual members. That isn't going to be easy all by itself.

Any negotiation includes the option of not concluding an agreement. Individual schools threatening to leave/drop football if enough money is not forthcoming are kind of irrelevant to the media company. If the proposed agreement is not attractive to them, they don't care what the individual schools do after that point unless it would help a competitor. Stanford dropping football certainly wouldn't do that. Such threats deliver no leverage. The only threats that matter and deliver leverage involves doing something else with the PAC-10/individual school's media rights that would hurt the current negotiating party. The PAC-10 needs to create that kind of leverage. Anything else is a fantasy. It won't be easy.

[Goose]

As has been pointed out by many, the PAC-10 can go forward "viably" only if nobody else leaves. At some point all the members need to realize that. The idea that everybody should be in "secret" negotiations the B1G, the SEC, and God Know Who will destroy any way forward. They have to trust each other, because if they don't, school X will jump because they justifiably believe school Y is leaving and they must preempt the departure. It is a classic game theory problem. I am pretty sure that any new media contract is going to have a significant poison pill for anybody leaving and that this will somehow need to be passed on to the individual members. That isn't going to be easy all by itself.

Any negotiation includes the option of not concluding an agreement. Individual schools threatening to leave/drop football if enough money is not forthcoming are kind of irrelevant to the media company. If the proposed agreement is not attractive to them, they don't care what the individual schools do after that point unless it would help a competitor. Stanford dropping football certainly wouldn't do that. Such threats deliver no leverage. The only threats that matter and deliver leverage involves doing something else with the PAC-10/individual school's media rights that would hurt the current negotiating party. The PAC-10 needs to create that kind of leverage. Anything else is a fantasy. It won't be easy.

[BostonCard]

Classic game theory.  The best cumulative outcome is that no one leaves, but the worst outcome for an individual school is to be left holding the bag when other teams leave.  It’s a recipe for no one trusting anyone else and everyone having secret negotiations as a fallback.

BC

[BostonCard]

Classic game theory.  The best cumulative outcome is that no one leaves, but the worst outcome for an individual school is to be left holding the bag when other teams leave.  It’s a recipe for no one trusting anyone else and everyone having secret negotiations as a fallback.

BC

[OutsiderFan]

As has been pointed out by many, the PAC-10 can go forward "viably" only if nobody else leaves. At some point all the members need to realize that. The idea that everybody should be in "secret" negotiations the B1G, the SEC, and God Know Who will destroy any way forward. They have to trust each other, because if they don't, school X will jump because they justifiably believe school Y is leaving and they must preempt the departure. It is a classic game theory problem. I am pretty sure that any new media contract is going to have a significant poison pill for anybody leaving and that this will somehow need to be passed on to the individual members. That isn't going to be easy all by itself.

Any negotiation includes the option of not concluding an agreement. Individual schools threatening to leave/drop football if enough money is not forthcoming are kind of irrelevant to the media company. If the proposed agreement is not attractive to them, they don't care what the individual schools do after that point unless it would help a competitor. Stanford dropping football certainly wouldn't do that. Such threats deliver no leverage. The only threats that matter and deliver leverage involves doing something else with the PAC-10/individual school's media rights that would hurt the current negotiating party. The PAC-10 needs to create that kind of leverage. Anything else is a fantasy. It won't be easy.

Stanford is the #17 most valuable College Football program, and while Cal is #46, not having those two would dissolve the Pac as a conference and the six schools I mentioned would bolt to the Big 12, who would be in business with Fox, not ESPN.

SEC - ESPN
ACC- ESPN
Big 12 - Fox
Big Ten - Fox

Pac 10 - ESPN or Big 12 gets bigger and gets the remaining west coast markets from ESPN.

You can see where this is heading. ESPN will have a conference and Fox will have one, as the "Bigs" will ultimately merge, as will the SEC and ACC.

The only question is how will the Pac schools be divided amongst ESPN and Fox if/when it dissolves at least for Football. I highly doubt ESPN wants to be locked out of every major market west of the Rockies. In a sense ESPN has to keep the Pac alive to thwart this. And the Pac isn't viable without Cal and Stanford.

The only way College Football gets control of itself and wrestles power away from Fox and ESPN is to create a league that does away with the "traditional" conferences for Football only, and allows the league to sell rights like the NFL does, to multiple rights buyers. Absent this, you put media companies in control of your sport to a degree that doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the schools.

[OutsiderFan]

As has been pointed out by many, the PAC-10 can go forward "viably" only if nobody else leaves. At some point all the members need to realize that. The idea that everybody should be in "secret" negotiations the B1G, the SEC, and God Know Who will destroy any way forward. They have to trust each other, because if they don't, school X will jump because they justifiably believe school Y is leaving and they must preempt the departure. It is a classic game theory problem. I am pretty sure that any new media contract is going to have a significant poison pill for anybody leaving and that this will somehow need to be passed on to the individual members. That isn't going to be easy all by itself.

Any negotiation includes the option of not concluding an agreement. Individual schools threatening to leave/drop football if enough money is not forthcoming are kind of irrelevant to the media company. If the proposed agreement is not attractive to them, they don't care what the individual schools do after that point unless it would help a competitor. Stanford dropping football certainly wouldn't do that. Such threats deliver no leverage. The only threats that matter and deliver leverage involves doing something else with the PAC-10/individual school's media rights that would hurt the current negotiating party. The PAC-10 needs to create that kind of leverage. Anything else is a fantasy. It won't be easy.

Stanford is the #17 most valuable College Football program, and while Cal is #46, not having those two would dissolve the Pac as a conference and the six schools I mentioned would bolt to the Big 12, who would be in business with Fox, not ESPN.

SEC - ESPN
ACC- ESPN
Big 12 - Fox
Big Ten - Fox

Pac 10 - ESPN or Big 12 gets bigger and gets the remaining west coast markets from ESPN.

You can see where this is heading. ESPN will have a conference and Fox will have one, as the "Bigs" will ultimately merge, as will the SEC and ACC.

The only question is how will the Pac schools be divided amongst ESPN and Fox if/when it dissolves at least for Football. I highly doubt ESPN wants to be locked out of every major market west of the Rockies. In a sense ESPN has to keep the Pac alive to thwart this. And the Pac isn't viable without Cal and Stanford.

The only way College Football gets control of itself and wrestles power away from Fox and ESPN is to create a league that does away with the "traditional" conferences for Football only, and allows the league to sell rights like the NFL does, to multiple rights buyers. Absent this, you put media companies in control of your sport to a degree that doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the schools.

[Softball Fan]

But Cal and Stanford are also two schools that don't put the football cart before the school horse. This means both schools could credibly threaten to drop football if ESPN low balls the Pac-10, and therefore create an "ESPN needs Cal and Stanford more than Cal and Stanford need ESPN's money" kind of dynamic. 

So you convince ESPN to pay more money by telling them football is so unimportant you may decide to drop it.  That's going to inspire ESPN to dump more money into a 3-9 Stanford team and a 5-7 Cal team. 

Based on recent reports, the Big 12 has concluded they don't see any realignment scenario with the PAC-12 adding value to what they have now.  ESPN has all the negotiating leverage if they are interested in the PAC-12 as a conference which they may not be.

[Softball Fan]

But Cal and Stanford are also two schools that don't put the football cart before the school horse. This means both schools could credibly threaten to drop football if ESPN low balls the Pac-10, and therefore create an "ESPN needs Cal and Stanford more than Cal and Stanford need ESPN's money" kind of dynamic. 

So you convince ESPN to pay more money by telling them football is so unimportant you may decide to drop it.  That's going to inspire ESPN to dump more money into a 3-9 Stanford team and a 5-7 Cal team. 

Based on recent reports, the Big 12 has concluded they don't see any realignment scenario with the PAC-12 adding value to what they have now.  ESPN has all the negotiating leverage if they are interested in the PAC-12 as a conference which they may not be.

[BostonCard]

I think we flatter ourselves if we think the PAC wouldn’t work without Stanford and Cal.  The PAC-12 probably can’t shrink below 10, but that kind of makes every school indispensable.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think we flatter ourselves if we think the PAC wouldn’t work without Stanford and Cal.  The PAC-12 probably can’t shrink below 10, but that kind of makes every school indispensable.

BC

[msqueri]

I think we flatter ourselves if we think the PAC wouldn’t work without Stanford and Cal.  The PAC-12 probably can’t shrink below 10, but that kind of makes every school indispensable.

BC

I don't think so at all. I'm not sure the Pac-12 can work without USC. Without USC, UCLA, and Stanford it would be completely pointless and pathetic. It would dissolve. Say everybody stays but Stanford - that's no championships, no nationally elite football sizzle and only a couple of even top 25 programs, and no LA. I think that's totally unviable economically and irrelevant to anybody outside the individual fan bases. That truly would be a conference on par with the Mountain West.

[msqueri]

I think we flatter ourselves if we think the PAC wouldn’t work without Stanford and Cal.  The PAC-12 probably can’t shrink below 10, but that kind of makes every school indispensable.

BC

I don't think so at all. I'm not sure the Pac-12 can work without USC. Without USC, UCLA, and Stanford it would be completely pointless and pathetic. It would dissolve. Say everybody stays but Stanford - that's no championships, no nationally elite football sizzle and only a couple of even top 25 programs, and no LA. I think that's totally unviable economically and irrelevant to anybody outside the individual fan bases. That truly would be a conference on par with the Mountain West.

[OutsiderFan]

But Cal and Stanford are also two schools that don't put the football cart before the school horse. This means both schools could credibly threaten to drop football if ESPN low balls the Pac-10, and therefore create an "ESPN needs Cal and Stanford more than Cal and Stanford need ESPN's money" kind of dynamic. 

So you convince ESPN to pay more money by telling them football is so unimportant you may decide to drop it.  That's going to inspire ESPN to dump more money into a 3-9 Stanford team and a 5-7 Cal team. 

Based on recent reports, the Big 12 has concluded they don't see any realignment scenario with the PAC-12 adding value to what they have now.  ESPN has all the negotiating leverage if they are interested in the PAC-12 as a conference which they may not be.

ESPN wants games in late time slots the Pac can provide in big western TV markets. If Stanford and Cal are not in the Pac the conference and those games go away for ESPN, so giving Cal and Stanford enough money to justify staying gives the Pac some leverage where otherwise it has none.

[OutsiderFan]

But Cal and Stanford are also two schools that don't put the football cart before the school horse. This means both schools could credibly threaten to drop football if ESPN low balls the Pac-10, and therefore create an "ESPN needs Cal and Stanford more than Cal and Stanford need ESPN's money" kind of dynamic. 

So you convince ESPN to pay more money by telling them football is so unimportant you may decide to drop it.  That's going to inspire ESPN to dump more money into a 3-9 Stanford team and a 5-7 Cal team. 

Based on recent reports, the Big 12 has concluded they don't see any realignment scenario with the PAC-12 adding value to what they have now.  ESPN has all the negotiating leverage if they are interested in the PAC-12 as a conference which they may not be.

ESPN wants games in late time slots the Pac can provide in big western TV markets. If Stanford and Cal are not in the Pac the conference and those games go away for ESPN, so giving Cal and Stanford enough money to justify staying gives the Pac some leverage where otherwise it has none.