08-10-2023, 03:04 PM
Stanford WBB averaged 4100 last season Men's BB 3,500.
Stanford to the ACC?
08-10-2023, 03:07 PM
(08-10-2023, 02:58 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote:(08-10-2023, 02:34 PM)msqueri Wrote: There are revenue sports beyond football?
In all seriousness, for those wondering, on average NCAA schools make four times as much on football as basketball, over 11 times as much on football as men's ice hockey, almost 20 times as much on football as women's basketball, about 23 times as much on football as baseball, about 25 times as much on football as track and field, about 32 times as much on football as men's lacrosse, and nothing else really seems significant. The average football team makes more revenue than the next 35 teams on average combined.
In terms of big picture importance there is only football. Even if you love other less popular sports, as I do for baseball, track and field, and golf, you should recognize that none of it happens without football. Too many people at Stanford had highfalutin thoughts about country club sports that in the grand scheme nobody cares about and that can't thrive like we love without the program people actually care about and will spend money on. Now I fear we are going to see the consequences of a Stanford with less of a preeminent place for football. Hope not. Don't think it would be pleasant for either the football obsessives or the football haters.
Just wondering, when saying NCAA schools, is it Division 1 schools? All Divisions? I'd guess that if you started with all Divisions, then Divsion 1 only, and then Power 5 schools only, the higher you go up the football level scale the multiples grow to much bigger multiples of football compared to all other sports.
Good question, source says this refers to FBS schools.
(08-10-2023, 02:58 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote:(08-10-2023, 02:34 PM)msqueri Wrote: There are revenue sports beyond football?
In all seriousness, for those wondering, on average NCAA schools make four times as much on football as basketball, over 11 times as much on football as men's ice hockey, almost 20 times as much on football as women's basketball, about 23 times as much on football as baseball, about 25 times as much on football as track and field, about 32 times as much on football as men's lacrosse, and nothing else really seems significant. The average football team makes more revenue than the next 35 teams on average combined.
In terms of big picture importance there is only football. Even if you love other less popular sports, as I do for baseball, track and field, and golf, you should recognize that none of it happens without football. Too many people at Stanford had highfalutin thoughts about country club sports that in the grand scheme nobody cares about and that can't thrive like we love without the program people actually care about and will spend money on. Now I fear we are going to see the consequences of a Stanford with less of a preeminent place for football. Hope not. Don't think it would be pleasant for either the football obsessives or the football haters.
Just wondering, when saying NCAA schools, is it Division 1 schools? All Divisions? I'd guess that if you started with all Divisions, then Divsion 1 only, and then Power 5 schools only, the higher you go up the football level scale the multiples grow to much bigger multiples of football compared to all other sports.
Good question, source says this refers to FBS schools.
08-10-2023, 03:32 PM
(08-10-2023, 02:06 PM)yvonne Wrote:(08-10-2023, 01:23 PM)oman Wrote: I'm a little past anger, but my anger was always directed at Stanford.
https://www.si.com/college/arkansas/hogs...ig-ten-sec
That guy lost me at "[Stanford is] good in a few minor sports." Secondly, I'm pretty sure that it was USC, not Stanford, that nixed Texas the first time around, and the second time, it was because of the Oklahoma schools, not Texas.
The history of the failed Pac-16 idea seems to have been rewritten this summer. Suddenly, it seems that it was Stanford and Cal using their influence to keep Texas and Oklahoma away. It's ridiculous.
(08-10-2023, 02:06 PM)yvonne Wrote:(08-10-2023, 01:23 PM)oman Wrote: I'm a little past anger, but my anger was always directed at Stanford.
https://www.si.com/college/arkansas/hogs...ig-ten-sec
That guy lost me at "[Stanford is] good in a few minor sports." Secondly, I'm pretty sure that it was USC, not Stanford, that nixed Texas the first time around, and the second time, it was because of the Oklahoma schools, not Texas.
The history of the failed Pac-16 idea seems to have been rewritten this summer. Suddenly, it seems that it was Stanford and Cal using their influence to keep Texas and Oklahoma away. It's ridiculous.
08-10-2023, 05:17 PM
California recruits can still play close to home if they go to USC and UCLA, they just have to travel farther for road games a few times a year. Presuming there are California recruits not interested in Stanford but who would prefer it if they were in a conference that played more bad West Coast teams instead of bad Midwest teams, there is still the issue of admissions. Stanford will always have to recruit nationally because of that.
Tangential, but maybe the likely upcoming dropping of standardized testing for admissions, as has already happened at UC's, will somewhat broaden our recruiting pool. Shame it will matter less if we're in the Mountain/Pac.
Tangential, but maybe the likely upcoming dropping of standardized testing for admissions, as has already happened at UC's, will somewhat broaden our recruiting pool. Shame it will matter less if we're in the Mountain/Pac.
California recruits can still play close to home if they go to USC and UCLA, they just have to travel farther for road games a few times a year. Presuming there are California recruits not interested in Stanford but who would prefer it if they were in a conference that played more bad West Coast teams instead of bad Midwest teams, there is still the issue of admissions. Stanford will always have to recruit nationally because of that.
Tangential, but maybe the likely upcoming dropping of standardized testing for admissions, as has already happened at UC's, will somewhat broaden our recruiting pool. Shame it will matter less if we're in the Mountain/Pac.
Tangential, but maybe the likely upcoming dropping of standardized testing for admissions, as has already happened at UC's, will somewhat broaden our recruiting pool. Shame it will matter less if we're in the Mountain/Pac.
08-10-2023, 05:45 PM
(08-10-2023, 03:32 PM)Canalejas Wrote: The history of the failed Pac-16 idea seems to have been rewritten this summer. Suddenly, it seems that it was Stanford and Cal using their influence to keep Texas and Oklahoma away. It's ridiculous.
That's exactly the line that was being suggested 10 years ago.
But you've convinced me. Stanford welcomed Texas with open arms.
(08-10-2023, 03:32 PM)Canalejas Wrote: The history of the failed Pac-16 idea seems to have been rewritten this summer. Suddenly, it seems that it was Stanford and Cal using their influence to keep Texas and Oklahoma away. It's ridiculous.
That's exactly the line that was being suggested 10 years ago.
But you've convinced me. Stanford welcomed Texas with open arms.
08-10-2023, 05:55 PM
Great post, branner.
You are absolutely right that proximity is an important consideration in recruiting but a) I think dabigv13 is right that to the extent California has talent this will benefit USC and UCLA (major winners if Stanford drops a level, though equally big if not bigger winners would be any schools remaining in Power Four that can credibly claim to have one of the best football/academic combos, which Stanford would sadly/devastatingly be disqualified from) and b) as you note the proximity advantage will much more substantially benefit non-Stanford schools because Stanford by necessity/identity recruits nationally and because schools we would be trying to compete with for national relevance have much greater proximity to the truly rich talent beds.
Ultimately I think the biggest issue is that I disagree with you that a multitude of factors can outweigh the conference thing. The conferences really do stratify college football. If you look at the 247 Talent Composite, the most talented remaining Group of Five team in the nation is SMU at #55. SMU has a rich football tradition, rabid and deep pocketed donors, and proximity to much more competitive football talent than Stanford. They also have won 32 games in the last four years compared to 23 for in-state "rival" Texas Tech, yet Texas Tech is #45 in the talent composite. You can't overcome conference in recruiting. It's how all this gets sorted - Power Five (Four) > Group of Five > FCS > Division II/III/NAIA. The best players will always want to play on the best stages. Yes, players care about proximity, mom and dad watching them, culture, playing time, uniforms and locker rooms, personal relationships, and other things that aren't conferences, but those always have been and always will be used to differentiate within competitive levels. Good players don't go to Sacramento State when they could go to Fresno State, and they won't go to a Mountain West Stanford if they can go to Big 10 USC or UCLA. [However, Stanford would be in much, much better situation in this circumstance than any other Group of Five program in history due to the national brand and academics, which would mean that we could get good recruits as long as they de-prioritize football. But recruits who truly care about football and not just in a Renaissance Man/Stanford Man sense won't be coming.]
I respect your argument that you're trying to think dynamically how chaos could make things look different than they have in the past. I just have a really hard time believing players willingly going to a lower level than their talent opens doors is going to be one of those. It will happen in rare cases but I think it is extraordinarily unlikely Stanford, #23 in the most recent 247 Talent Composite, could ever have those levels of recruiting playing in a minor conference.
I also disagree with your pessimism about the Big 10. They are in great shape and will just get richer with the eventual implosion of the ACC that you and I both anticipate. And as the Big 10 gets bigger a) it will be less vulnerable to travel frictions than you anticipate because teams will by necessity play unbalanced schedules based on geographic convenience and historical rivalry and b) even if it proves untenable for one or more of the four Pac-12 refugees those schools are gravy for the Big 10 anyway and their happiness, or even retention in the conference, is not fundamental to whether the Big 10 survives. The SEC and Big 10 are entrenched with the marquee properties in college football that aren't going anywhere. I still think where we're heading eventually is consolidation into one or two (max three) super leagues. The only thing - and I literally mean the only thing - that has surprised me about all of the conference realignment machinations the last few years is how superbly the Big 12 has played the cards it's been dealt.
You are absolutely right that proximity is an important consideration in recruiting but a) I think dabigv13 is right that to the extent California has talent this will benefit USC and UCLA (major winners if Stanford drops a level, though equally big if not bigger winners would be any schools remaining in Power Four that can credibly claim to have one of the best football/academic combos, which Stanford would sadly/devastatingly be disqualified from) and b) as you note the proximity advantage will much more substantially benefit non-Stanford schools because Stanford by necessity/identity recruits nationally and because schools we would be trying to compete with for national relevance have much greater proximity to the truly rich talent beds.
Ultimately I think the biggest issue is that I disagree with you that a multitude of factors can outweigh the conference thing. The conferences really do stratify college football. If you look at the 247 Talent Composite, the most talented remaining Group of Five team in the nation is SMU at #55. SMU has a rich football tradition, rabid and deep pocketed donors, and proximity to much more competitive football talent than Stanford. They also have won 32 games in the last four years compared to 23 for in-state "rival" Texas Tech, yet Texas Tech is #45 in the talent composite. You can't overcome conference in recruiting. It's how all this gets sorted - Power Five (Four) > Group of Five > FCS > Division II/III/NAIA. The best players will always want to play on the best stages. Yes, players care about proximity, mom and dad watching them, culture, playing time, uniforms and locker rooms, personal relationships, and other things that aren't conferences, but those always have been and always will be used to differentiate within competitive levels. Good players don't go to Sacramento State when they could go to Fresno State, and they won't go to a Mountain West Stanford if they can go to Big 10 USC or UCLA. [However, Stanford would be in much, much better situation in this circumstance than any other Group of Five program in history due to the national brand and academics, which would mean that we could get good recruits as long as they de-prioritize football. But recruits who truly care about football and not just in a Renaissance Man/Stanford Man sense won't be coming.]
I respect your argument that you're trying to think dynamically how chaos could make things look different than they have in the past. I just have a really hard time believing players willingly going to a lower level than their talent opens doors is going to be one of those. It will happen in rare cases but I think it is extraordinarily unlikely Stanford, #23 in the most recent 247 Talent Composite, could ever have those levels of recruiting playing in a minor conference.
I also disagree with your pessimism about the Big 10. They are in great shape and will just get richer with the eventual implosion of the ACC that you and I both anticipate. And as the Big 10 gets bigger a) it will be less vulnerable to travel frictions than you anticipate because teams will by necessity play unbalanced schedules based on geographic convenience and historical rivalry and b) even if it proves untenable for one or more of the four Pac-12 refugees those schools are gravy for the Big 10 anyway and their happiness, or even retention in the conference, is not fundamental to whether the Big 10 survives. The SEC and Big 10 are entrenched with the marquee properties in college football that aren't going anywhere. I still think where we're heading eventually is consolidation into one or two (max three) super leagues. The only thing - and I literally mean the only thing - that has surprised me about all of the conference realignment machinations the last few years is how superbly the Big 12 has played the cards it's been dealt.
Great post, branner.
You are absolutely right that proximity is an important consideration in recruiting but a) I think dabigv13 is right that to the extent California has talent this will benefit USC and UCLA (major winners if Stanford drops a level, though equally big if not bigger winners would be any schools remaining in Power Four that can credibly claim to have one of the best football/academic combos, which Stanford would sadly/devastatingly be disqualified from) and b) as you note the proximity advantage will much more substantially benefit non-Stanford schools because Stanford by necessity/identity recruits nationally and because schools we would be trying to compete with for national relevance have much greater proximity to the truly rich talent beds.
Ultimately I think the biggest issue is that I disagree with you that a multitude of factors can outweigh the conference thing. The conferences really do stratify college football. If you look at the 247 Talent Composite, the most talented remaining Group of Five team in the nation is SMU at #55. SMU has a rich football tradition, rabid and deep pocketed donors, and proximity to much more competitive football talent than Stanford. They also have won 32 games in the last four years compared to 23 for in-state "rival" Texas Tech, yet Texas Tech is #45 in the talent composite. You can't overcome conference in recruiting. It's how all this gets sorted - Power Five (Four) > Group of Five > FCS > Division II/III/NAIA. The best players will always want to play on the best stages. Yes, players care about proximity, mom and dad watching them, culture, playing time, uniforms and locker rooms, personal relationships, and other things that aren't conferences, but those always have been and always will be used to differentiate within competitive levels. Good players don't go to Sacramento State when they could go to Fresno State, and they won't go to a Mountain West Stanford if they can go to Big 10 USC or UCLA. [However, Stanford would be in much, much better situation in this circumstance than any other Group of Five program in history due to the national brand and academics, which would mean that we could get good recruits as long as they de-prioritize football. But recruits who truly care about football and not just in a Renaissance Man/Stanford Man sense won't be coming.]
I respect your argument that you're trying to think dynamically how chaos could make things look different than they have in the past. I just have a really hard time believing players willingly going to a lower level than their talent opens doors is going to be one of those. It will happen in rare cases but I think it is extraordinarily unlikely Stanford, #23 in the most recent 247 Talent Composite, could ever have those levels of recruiting playing in a minor conference.
I also disagree with your pessimism about the Big 10. They are in great shape and will just get richer with the eventual implosion of the ACC that you and I both anticipate. And as the Big 10 gets bigger a) it will be less vulnerable to travel frictions than you anticipate because teams will by necessity play unbalanced schedules based on geographic convenience and historical rivalry and b) even if it proves untenable for one or more of the four Pac-12 refugees those schools are gravy for the Big 10 anyway and their happiness, or even retention in the conference, is not fundamental to whether the Big 10 survives. The SEC and Big 10 are entrenched with the marquee properties in college football that aren't going anywhere. I still think where we're heading eventually is consolidation into one or two (max three) super leagues. The only thing - and I literally mean the only thing - that has surprised me about all of the conference realignment machinations the last few years is how superbly the Big 12 has played the cards it's been dealt.
You are absolutely right that proximity is an important consideration in recruiting but a) I think dabigv13 is right that to the extent California has talent this will benefit USC and UCLA (major winners if Stanford drops a level, though equally big if not bigger winners would be any schools remaining in Power Four that can credibly claim to have one of the best football/academic combos, which Stanford would sadly/devastatingly be disqualified from) and b) as you note the proximity advantage will much more substantially benefit non-Stanford schools because Stanford by necessity/identity recruits nationally and because schools we would be trying to compete with for national relevance have much greater proximity to the truly rich talent beds.
Ultimately I think the biggest issue is that I disagree with you that a multitude of factors can outweigh the conference thing. The conferences really do stratify college football. If you look at the 247 Talent Composite, the most talented remaining Group of Five team in the nation is SMU at #55. SMU has a rich football tradition, rabid and deep pocketed donors, and proximity to much more competitive football talent than Stanford. They also have won 32 games in the last four years compared to 23 for in-state "rival" Texas Tech, yet Texas Tech is #45 in the talent composite. You can't overcome conference in recruiting. It's how all this gets sorted - Power Five (Four) > Group of Five > FCS > Division II/III/NAIA. The best players will always want to play on the best stages. Yes, players care about proximity, mom and dad watching them, culture, playing time, uniforms and locker rooms, personal relationships, and other things that aren't conferences, but those always have been and always will be used to differentiate within competitive levels. Good players don't go to Sacramento State when they could go to Fresno State, and they won't go to a Mountain West Stanford if they can go to Big 10 USC or UCLA. [However, Stanford would be in much, much better situation in this circumstance than any other Group of Five program in history due to the national brand and academics, which would mean that we could get good recruits as long as they de-prioritize football. But recruits who truly care about football and not just in a Renaissance Man/Stanford Man sense won't be coming.]
I respect your argument that you're trying to think dynamically how chaos could make things look different than they have in the past. I just have a really hard time believing players willingly going to a lower level than their talent opens doors is going to be one of those. It will happen in rare cases but I think it is extraordinarily unlikely Stanford, #23 in the most recent 247 Talent Composite, could ever have those levels of recruiting playing in a minor conference.
I also disagree with your pessimism about the Big 10. They are in great shape and will just get richer with the eventual implosion of the ACC that you and I both anticipate. And as the Big 10 gets bigger a) it will be less vulnerable to travel frictions than you anticipate because teams will by necessity play unbalanced schedules based on geographic convenience and historical rivalry and b) even if it proves untenable for one or more of the four Pac-12 refugees those schools are gravy for the Big 10 anyway and their happiness, or even retention in the conference, is not fundamental to whether the Big 10 survives. The SEC and Big 10 are entrenched with the marquee properties in college football that aren't going anywhere. I still think where we're heading eventually is consolidation into one or two (max three) super leagues. The only thing - and I literally mean the only thing - that has surprised me about all of the conference realignment machinations the last few years is how superbly the Big 12 has played the cards it's been dealt.
08-10-2023, 06:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-10-2023, 06:02 PM by jacket3ree.)
(08-10-2023, 08:53 AM)msqueri Wrote: If we are forced to go regional outside of the Big 10 (which given its new members is actually sort of a regional conference for us), we should do it with anger that we've been unfairly kicked out of the party and with determination to get back to the party. The goal wouldn't be to make the Pacific Mountain Conference major but rather to make ourselves major again, in spite of the Pacific Mountain Conference. We should plow resources and determination into following the path BYU, Cincinnati, and Houston forged before us of major teams kicked out of major conference status that fought their way back.
There we go. The best thing about all this is I'm reminded that I still care. I was getting close to being done with college sports before my schools were shat on (one far more than the other), metaphorically. Now I want to see the P4 somehow rise up and strike down upon the power structure of CFB with great vengeance and furious anger.
I thought that's the place OSU and WSU were starting from, but Wazzou's AD said they 'deserved to be in a Power 5 conference.' I don't know about 'deserve' (same holds true for Stanford), but to paraphrase the late Scoop Nisker, 'if you're not invited into a power conference, go out and make one of your own.'
Those are good examples of teams fighting their way up, although I think only Houston was ever in a "major" conference, the Southwest, which folded and they landed in Conference USA before rolling into the AAC. Not to be picayune but BYU was in the WAC and MWC before being briefly independent and Cincinnati was in the Missouri Valley, Conference USA, Big East and AAC prior to jumping ship. They sure worked their way up in the shadow of Ohio State and the Big Ten, but I don't know if they went through the same sort of conference downfall as Stanford or Houston. I can't remember if the Big East was considered major in football. The ACC started all this by scavenging that.
Still, one can have good competitive football in a "lesser" conference. Can one support 36 sports doing that? Harvard does (42), so....
(This post was last modified: 08-10-2023, 06:02 PM by jacket3ree.)
(08-10-2023, 08:53 AM)msqueri Wrote: If we are forced to go regional outside of the Big 10 (which given its new members is actually sort of a regional conference for us), we should do it with anger that we've been unfairly kicked out of the party and with determination to get back to the party. The goal wouldn't be to make the Pacific Mountain Conference major but rather to make ourselves major again, in spite of the Pacific Mountain Conference. We should plow resources and determination into following the path BYU, Cincinnati, and Houston forged before us of major teams kicked out of major conference status that fought their way back.
There we go. The best thing about all this is I'm reminded that I still care. I was getting close to being done with college sports before my schools were shat on (one far more than the other), metaphorically. Now I want to see the P4 somehow rise up and strike down upon the power structure of CFB with great vengeance and furious anger.
I thought that's the place OSU and WSU were starting from, but Wazzou's AD said they 'deserved to be in a Power 5 conference.' I don't know about 'deserve' (same holds true for Stanford), but to paraphrase the late Scoop Nisker, 'if you're not invited into a power conference, go out and make one of your own.'
Those are good examples of teams fighting their way up, although I think only Houston was ever in a "major" conference, the Southwest, which folded and they landed in Conference USA before rolling into the AAC. Not to be picayune but BYU was in the WAC and MWC before being briefly independent and Cincinnati was in the Missouri Valley, Conference USA, Big East and AAC prior to jumping ship. They sure worked their way up in the shadow of Ohio State and the Big Ten, but I don't know if they went through the same sort of conference downfall as Stanford or Houston. I can't remember if the Big East was considered major in football. The ACC started all this by scavenging that.
Still, one can have good competitive football in a "lesser" conference. Can one support 36 sports doing that? Harvard does (42), so....
08-10-2023, 06:07 PM
I go back and forth on how to characterize BYU. The WAC used to be a lot more major than it ended up, but agree it may be a stretch for this discussion. Cincinnati and the Big East absolutely were major. That was the BCS era and the Big East had an automatic bid. Definitely major.
I go back and forth on how to characterize BYU. The WAC used to be a lot more major than it ended up, but agree it may be a stretch for this discussion. Cincinnati and the Big East absolutely were major. That was the BCS era and the Big East had an automatic bid. Definitely major.
08-10-2023, 07:21 PM
(08-10-2023, 05:45 PM)oman Wrote:(08-10-2023, 03:32 PM)Canalejas Wrote: The history of the failed Pac-16 idea seems to have been rewritten this summer. Suddenly, it seems that it was Stanford and Cal using their influence to keep Texas and Oklahoma away. It's ridiculous.
That's exactly the line that was being suggested 10 years ago.
But you've convinced me. Stanford welcomed Texas with open arms.
I don't know how widely Stanford opened its arms, but it had to approve the offer that Larry extended to Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State as a group, no? It was my understanding that votes on membership back then had to be unanimous. But maybe someone that remembers the bylaws of the Pac-10 can correct me if that wasn't the case.
After A&M declined and Texas got a deal for its own TV network, I don't remember any of the reporting saying that only Stanford and Cal opposed Texas coming with their own TV channel anyway. That was supposed to be a line that many of our old conference-mates didn't want to cross.
Anyway, that's all old news. What aggravates me is that the story has morphed into a few variations. That Stanford rejected Texas and Oklahoma, or Texas and Texas Tech, or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (the following year.) That last one is probably the closest one to being true, actually. Though by then I think the threshold for membership decisions had gone down. So Stanford and Cal couldn't have been alone in opposing it, if in fact they opposed it.
(08-10-2023, 05:45 PM)oman Wrote:(08-10-2023, 03:32 PM)Canalejas Wrote: The history of the failed Pac-16 idea seems to have been rewritten this summer. Suddenly, it seems that it was Stanford and Cal using their influence to keep Texas and Oklahoma away. It's ridiculous.
That's exactly the line that was being suggested 10 years ago.
But you've convinced me. Stanford welcomed Texas with open arms.
I don't know how widely Stanford opened its arms, but it had to approve the offer that Larry extended to Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State as a group, no? It was my understanding that votes on membership back then had to be unanimous. But maybe someone that remembers the bylaws of the Pac-10 can correct me if that wasn't the case.
After A&M declined and Texas got a deal for its own TV network, I don't remember any of the reporting saying that only Stanford and Cal opposed Texas coming with their own TV channel anyway. That was supposed to be a line that many of our old conference-mates didn't want to cross.
Anyway, that's all old news. What aggravates me is that the story has morphed into a few variations. That Stanford rejected Texas and Oklahoma, or Texas and Texas Tech, or Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (the following year.) That last one is probably the closest one to being true, actually. Though by then I think the threshold for membership decisions had gone down. So Stanford and Cal couldn't have been alone in opposing it, if in fact they opposed it.
08-10-2023, 07:51 PM
Nothing to add except that with chatgpt I'm glad we'll have shorter posts in the future
08-10-2023, 08:02 PM
Back in the days of the Pac-X discussions, I believe Texas was unwilling/unable to give up their Longhorn Network-exclusive game rights, and the Pac-12 at the time was unwilling to hand over those rights. I don't remember Larry Scott compromising on that...but I could be wrong. And I specifically remember that Texas wouldn't budge on trying to make the LHN special.
Back in the days of the Pac-X discussions, I believe Texas was unwilling/unable to give up their Longhorn Network-exclusive game rights, and the Pac-12 at the time was unwilling to hand over those rights. I don't remember Larry Scott compromising on that...but I could be wrong. And I specifically remember that Texas wouldn't budge on trying to make the LHN special.
(08-10-2023, 08:02 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Back in the days of the Pac-X discussions, I believe Texas was unwilling/unable to give up their Longhorn Network-exclusive game rights, and the Pac-12 at the time was unwilling to hand over those rights. I don't remember Larry Scott compromising on that...but I could be wrong. And I specifically remember that Texas wouldn't budge on trying to make the LHN special.
A dumb decision amongst a litany of others. I was salivating at prospect of UT and OU joining the Pac-12
(This post was last modified: 08-10-2023, 08:20 PM by norcard10.)
(08-10-2023, 08:02 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Back in the days of the Pac-X discussions, I believe Texas was unwilling/unable to give up their Longhorn Network-exclusive game rights, and the Pac-12 at the time was unwilling to hand over those rights. I don't remember Larry Scott compromising on that...but I could be wrong. And I specifically remember that Texas wouldn't budge on trying to make the LHN special.
A dumb decision amongst a litany of others. I was salivating at prospect of UT and OU joining the Pac-12
Softball Fan
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-10-2023, 08:21 PM
I expect to see some rumors next week about what Stanford plans to do next. They need to keep moving. I don't expect FSU to suddenly announce they are leaving the ACC before next week's deadline so the door to that conference looks closed for now. IMO it's essential coaches in all Stanford sports keep players and potential recruits abreast of what Stanford will try to do.
Does coach Taylor have to back track now about how he can't imagine anything other than Power 5 conference for his team? At the moment that doesn't have enough credibility for the near term.
Does coach Taylor have to back track now about how he can't imagine anything other than Power 5 conference for his team? At the moment that doesn't have enough credibility for the near term.
I expect to see some rumors next week about what Stanford plans to do next. They need to keep moving. I don't expect FSU to suddenly announce they are leaving the ACC before next week's deadline so the door to that conference looks closed for now. IMO it's essential coaches in all Stanford sports keep players and potential recruits abreast of what Stanford will try to do.
Does coach Taylor have to back track now about how he can't imagine anything other than Power 5 conference for his team? At the moment that doesn't have enough credibility for the near term.
Does coach Taylor have to back track now about how he can't imagine anything other than Power 5 conference for his team? At the moment that doesn't have enough credibility for the near term.
(08-09-2023, 10:26 PM)StanfordMatt Wrote: The ACC sounds like a couple with a troubled marriage with one spouse pushing to have a baby in hopes that it’ll save the marriage while the other has a wandering eye and one foot out the door.
So... possibly 40%-50% of marriages in California fit that discription...
So, call me... maybe?
[How many Stanford and Kal athletes are in this 2012 Olympic vid.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPIA7mpm1wU
(08-10-2023, 07:41 AM)Mick Wrote: I say this with genuine respect, but given the reality of Stanford football's current program, our stance towards NIL investments, our mass net departures via the portal (to say the least), and TT's background as an FCS coach (albeit a very successful one); the odds of Coach TT outperforming expectations to the degree that he would be considered attractive to a Power 5 football program are very, very long. Not quite as long as Stanford v. USC at the Coliseum in 2007, but pretty darned close...
Well, let's see we shocked USC in 2007 at the Coliseum. "It could not be done. No way; 40 point road dog."
Then a total beat-down in 2009 ("Hey, what's you deal?" game)... Pete Carroll quit after that; went to Seattle.
Then edged them in OT again in 2011 (Andrew Luck; they fumbled in the end zone, we win).
And, Hogan drilled them 41-31 again in 2015. And McCaffrey ran all over Troy again in the Pac-12 Champ game Dec. 2015.
So, yeah... pretty good odds? Hey, wasn't supposed to happen.
(08-10-2023, 08:10 AM)jacket3ree Wrote:(08-10-2023, 06:53 AM)pcgoode Wrote: I don’t think we are getting into any remaining Power 5 conference unless Notre Dame says they will join on the condition that Stanford gets in as well, or we do so based on a massive haircut on revenues.
This is it, exactly. There are only 4 "power" conferences left:
1. SEC - Nope
2. B1G - keep dreaming, but nope
3. BIG12 - I thought they asked and Stanford said "no"?
4. ACC - only instant power option
Everyone knows the story about breakfast, right? The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. ND has been heavily involved in pushing Stanford and Cal to the ACC. Some think a stable ACC is ND's best option to keep their options open. If ND football became the pig and joined the ACC with NBC in tow somehow, the conference is saved and Stanford is in the #3 Power 4. A really strong #3. ND is already playing 5 or 6 ACC football games every year. They can keep USC and Navy and get Stanford for free. ND has had memorable series and games with Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State. It's not the worst idea on earth and they owe the ACC, but it's ND, so they are the king makers. Until they are not. Their contract with NBC ends in a year and those dollars are starting to slide.
Since Stanford seems unwilling to lead, follow the lead of SDSU's president, who is ready to reshape a Pacific Coast Conference. Go where you are wanted. Why can every other power team figure out how to move, but we're worried about MWC exit fees and debasing ourselves to, God forbid, play in San Diego or Hawaii regularly, because we've played San Diego and Hawaii before? Sometimes life throws crap at you, and it is time to rebuild. Make the Mountain Pacific Conference a power conference.
When 4 merge with 12, usually the name of the 12 stays, but I'm sure the 12 would rebrand if treated right.
Honestly, I don't understand the point of 24 team conferences. Ted: "That don't make no sense." Roy: "Money." Ted: "Oh right, that makes sense."
Re Hawaii: Godspeed to everyone on Maui.
Right on Maui. Well, we don't need to be "Pacific" or "Mountain" anything...
Just the WESTERN POWER CONF. Done. The Dudes. Saddle up. Put some hitching posts outside the Stadiums.
We are all out West, made possible by Leland Stanford, Sr. driving a golden spike for the Union Pac RR in May 1869. Boom.
(08-09-2023, 10:26 PM)StanfordMatt Wrote: The ACC sounds like a couple with a troubled marriage with one spouse pushing to have a baby in hopes that it’ll save the marriage while the other has a wandering eye and one foot out the door.
So... possibly 40%-50% of marriages in California fit that discription...
So, call me... maybe?
[How many Stanford and Kal athletes are in this 2012 Olympic vid.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPIA7mpm1wU
(08-10-2023, 07:41 AM)Mick Wrote: I say this with genuine respect, but given the reality of Stanford football's current program, our stance towards NIL investments, our mass net departures via the portal (to say the least), and TT's background as an FCS coach (albeit a very successful one); the odds of Coach TT outperforming expectations to the degree that he would be considered attractive to a Power 5 football program are very, very long. Not quite as long as Stanford v. USC at the Coliseum in 2007, but pretty darned close...
Well, let's see we shocked USC in 2007 at the Coliseum. "It could not be done. No way; 40 point road dog."
Then a total beat-down in 2009 ("Hey, what's you deal?" game)... Pete Carroll quit after that; went to Seattle.
Then edged them in OT again in 2011 (Andrew Luck; they fumbled in the end zone, we win).
And, Hogan drilled them 41-31 again in 2015. And McCaffrey ran all over Troy again in the Pac-12 Champ game Dec. 2015.
So, yeah... pretty good odds? Hey, wasn't supposed to happen.
(08-10-2023, 08:10 AM)jacket3ree Wrote:(08-10-2023, 06:53 AM)pcgoode Wrote: I don’t think we are getting into any remaining Power 5 conference unless Notre Dame says they will join on the condition that Stanford gets in as well, or we do so based on a massive haircut on revenues.
This is it, exactly. There are only 4 "power" conferences left:
1. SEC - Nope
2. B1G - keep dreaming, but nope
3. BIG12 - I thought they asked and Stanford said "no"?
4. ACC - only instant power option
Everyone knows the story about breakfast, right? The chicken is involved, but the pig is committed. ND has been heavily involved in pushing Stanford and Cal to the ACC. Some think a stable ACC is ND's best option to keep their options open. If ND football became the pig and joined the ACC with NBC in tow somehow, the conference is saved and Stanford is in the #3 Power 4. A really strong #3. ND is already playing 5 or 6 ACC football games every year. They can keep USC and Navy and get Stanford for free. ND has had memorable series and games with Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State. It's not the worst idea on earth and they owe the ACC, but it's ND, so they are the king makers. Until they are not. Their contract with NBC ends in a year and those dollars are starting to slide.
Since Stanford seems unwilling to lead, follow the lead of SDSU's president, who is ready to reshape a Pacific Coast Conference. Go where you are wanted. Why can every other power team figure out how to move, but we're worried about MWC exit fees and debasing ourselves to, God forbid, play in San Diego or Hawaii regularly, because we've played San Diego and Hawaii before? Sometimes life throws crap at you, and it is time to rebuild. Make the Mountain Pacific Conference a power conference.
When 4 merge with 12, usually the name of the 12 stays, but I'm sure the 12 would rebrand if treated right.
Honestly, I don't understand the point of 24 team conferences. Ted: "That don't make no sense." Roy: "Money." Ted: "Oh right, that makes sense."
Re Hawaii: Godspeed to everyone on Maui.
Right on Maui. Well, we don't need to be "Pacific" or "Mountain" anything...
Just the WESTERN POWER CONF. Done. The Dudes. Saddle up. Put some hitching posts outside the Stadiums.
We are all out West, made possible by Leland Stanford, Sr. driving a golden spike for the Union Pac RR in May 1869. Boom.
(08-10-2023, 09:20 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:(08-10-2023, 07:41 AM)Mick Wrote: I say this with genuine respect, but given the reality of Stanford football's current program, our stance towards NIL investments, our mass net departures via the portal (to say the least), and TT's background as an FCS coach (albeit a very successful one); the odds of Coach TT outperforming expectations to the degree that he would be considered attractive to a Power 5 football program are very, very long. Not quite as long as Stanford v. USC at the Coliseum in 2007, but pretty darned close...
Well, let's see we shocked USC in 2007 at the Coliseum. "It could not be done. No way; 40 point road dog."
Then a total beat-down in 2009 ("Hey, what's you deal?" game)... Pete Carroll quit after that; went to Seattle.
Then edged them in OT again in 2011 (Andrew Luck; they fumbled in the end zone, we win).
And, Hogan drilled them 41-31 again in 2015. And McCaffrey ran all over Troy again in the Pac-12 Champ game Dec. 2015.
So, yeah... pretty good odds? Hey, wasn't supposed to happen.
It doesn't sound like you understand my point. The 2009 and 2011 outcomes are irrelevant to the analogy. 2007 was Harbaugh's first season. That year, there was a nice victory over outmanned SJSU, but prior to the USC game, the Cardinal were thumped by #14 UCLA (45-17), #13 Oregon (55-31) and #23 Arizona State (41-3). And Stanford was traveling to #2 USC to play at the Coliseum before 85,000+ fans. For all these reasons, it was the single greatest upsent in NCAA football history, IMHO. What I tried to convey is that Coach Taylor faces similar odds in building a team this season that is one year removed from coaching Sac State, that will render Taylor as an attractive coaching candidate to Power 5 (excuse me, Power 4) programs.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(08-10-2023, 09:20 PM)ADPinWDC Wrote:(08-10-2023, 07:41 AM)Mick Wrote: I say this with genuine respect, but given the reality of Stanford football's current program, our stance towards NIL investments, our mass net departures via the portal (to say the least), and TT's background as an FCS coach (albeit a very successful one); the odds of Coach TT outperforming expectations to the degree that he would be considered attractive to a Power 5 football program are very, very long. Not quite as long as Stanford v. USC at the Coliseum in 2007, but pretty darned close...
Well, let's see we shocked USC in 2007 at the Coliseum. "It could not be done. No way; 40 point road dog."
Then a total beat-down in 2009 ("Hey, what's you deal?" game)... Pete Carroll quit after that; went to Seattle.
Then edged them in OT again in 2011 (Andrew Luck; they fumbled in the end zone, we win).
And, Hogan drilled them 41-31 again in 2015. And McCaffrey ran all over Troy again in the Pac-12 Champ game Dec. 2015.
So, yeah... pretty good odds? Hey, wasn't supposed to happen.
It doesn't sound like you understand my point. The 2009 and 2011 outcomes are irrelevant to the analogy. 2007 was Harbaugh's first season. That year, there was a nice victory over outmanned SJSU, but prior to the USC game, the Cardinal were thumped by #14 UCLA (45-17), #13 Oregon (55-31) and #23 Arizona State (41-3). And Stanford was traveling to #2 USC to play at the Coliseum before 85,000+ fans. For all these reasons, it was the single greatest upsent in NCAA football history, IMHO. What I tried to convey is that Coach Taylor faces similar odds in building a team this season that is one year removed from coaching Sac State, that will render Taylor as an attractive coaching candidate to Power 5 (excuse me, Power 4) programs.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
08-11-2023, 03:49 PM
(08-10-2023, 06:07 PM)msqueri Wrote: I go back and forth on how to characterize BYU. The WAC used to be a lot more major than it ended up, but agree it may be a stretch for this discussion. Cincinnati and the Big East absolutely were major. That was the BCS era and the Big East had an automatic bid. Definitely major.
I agree it was more “major” then vs. now. I wouldn’t have called it equivalent to the current Power5 majors though even at its peak.
(08-10-2023, 06:07 PM)msqueri Wrote: I go back and forth on how to characterize BYU. The WAC used to be a lot more major than it ended up, but agree it may be a stretch for this discussion. Cincinnati and the Big East absolutely were major. That was the BCS era and the Big East had an automatic bid. Definitely major.
I agree it was more “major” then vs. now. I wouldn’t have called it equivalent to the current Power5 majors though even at its peak.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...l-stanford
Not a surprise four of the schools oppose with travel and limited financial benefit added being potential reasons. Rational IMO, albeit bad for Stanford.
Big Ten while the remotest of possibilities remains my preference due to historical rivalries and proximity.
Not a surprise four of the schools oppose with travel and limited financial benefit added being potential reasons. Rational IMO, albeit bad for Stanford.
Big Ten while the remotest of possibilities remains my preference due to historical rivalries and proximity.
(This post was last modified: 08-11-2023, 08:41 PM by norcard10.)
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...l-stanford
Not a surprise four of the schools oppose with travel and limited financial benefit added being potential reasons. Rational IMO, albeit bad for Stanford.
Big Ten while the remotest of possibilities remains my preference due to historical rivalries and proximity.
Not a surprise four of the schools oppose with travel and limited financial benefit added being potential reasons. Rational IMO, albeit bad for Stanford.
Big Ten while the remotest of possibilities remains my preference due to historical rivalries and proximity.
08-11-2023, 09:26 PM
(08-11-2023, 08:40 PM)norcard10 Wrote: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...l-stanford
Not a surprise four of the schools oppose with travel and limited financial benefit added being potential reasons. Rational IMO, albeit bad for Stanford.
Big Ten while the remotest of possibilities remains my preference due to historical rivalries and proximity.
While I would say, Stanford and Cal have the support of 11 schools. We will probably know the answer by Tuesday when the next deadline arrives.
(08-11-2023, 08:40 PM)norcard10 Wrote: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...l-stanford
Not a surprise four of the schools oppose with travel and limited financial benefit added being potential reasons. Rational IMO, albeit bad for Stanford.
Big Ten while the remotest of possibilities remains my preference due to historical rivalries and proximity.
While I would say, Stanford and Cal have the support of 11 schools. We will probably know the answer by Tuesday when the next deadline arrives.
08-12-2023, 11:11 PM
It's not surprising 4 ACC programs are objecting to adding Stanford and Cal, a proposal being apparently pushed by Notre Dame. It's actually smart for them to object, as adding Stanford and Cal would be likely dilutive on a per program basis. And let's be honest -- adding Stanford and Cal won't "save" the ACC unless Notre Dame also joins as a full member (including football). So why placate Notre Dame when it continues to refuse to join the ACC as a full member? Notre Dame still needs a home for its other (non-football) sports so it's probably not leaving the ACC.
Make no mistake, FOX and ESPN are calling the shots in the realignment that has happened the past few years. They're paying big money for teams that draw lots of viewers. Unfortunately, Stanford and Cal football games on tv haven't consistently drawn enough viewers. That's why both are on the outside looking in. If it was up to the Chancellors / Presidents of the member universities, Stanford would already be in the B1G Ten. Alas, no current B1G Ten member is willing to take a smaller share of the (media rights revenue) pie to admit a program or two that would be dilutive. Oregon and Washington will receive only a partial share for the duration of the B1G Ten media rights contracts that begin in 2024 -- and FOX ponied up additional money -- so there is no dilution. USC and UCLA -- as members of the B1G Ten -- were factored into the negotiated media rights contracts so both will receive a full share upon joining the conference.
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford and perhaps Cal make their way to the B1G Ten in a few years. Hopefully I'm right about Stanford, as good tickets for a game at Ohio State or Nebraska can be a challenge to get at a decent price. And in November, the weather in Palo Alto will probably be better than in Columbus or Lincoln.
Make no mistake, FOX and ESPN are calling the shots in the realignment that has happened the past few years. They're paying big money for teams that draw lots of viewers. Unfortunately, Stanford and Cal football games on tv haven't consistently drawn enough viewers. That's why both are on the outside looking in. If it was up to the Chancellors / Presidents of the member universities, Stanford would already be in the B1G Ten. Alas, no current B1G Ten member is willing to take a smaller share of the (media rights revenue) pie to admit a program or two that would be dilutive. Oregon and Washington will receive only a partial share for the duration of the B1G Ten media rights contracts that begin in 2024 -- and FOX ponied up additional money -- so there is no dilution. USC and UCLA -- as members of the B1G Ten -- were factored into the negotiated media rights contracts so both will receive a full share upon joining the conference.
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford and perhaps Cal make their way to the B1G Ten in a few years. Hopefully I'm right about Stanford, as good tickets for a game at Ohio State or Nebraska can be a challenge to get at a decent price. And in November, the weather in Palo Alto will probably be better than in Columbus or Lincoln.
It's not surprising 4 ACC programs are objecting to adding Stanford and Cal, a proposal being apparently pushed by Notre Dame. It's actually smart for them to object, as adding Stanford and Cal would be likely dilutive on a per program basis. And let's be honest -- adding Stanford and Cal won't "save" the ACC unless Notre Dame also joins as a full member (including football). So why placate Notre Dame when it continues to refuse to join the ACC as a full member? Notre Dame still needs a home for its other (non-football) sports so it's probably not leaving the ACC.
Make no mistake, FOX and ESPN are calling the shots in the realignment that has happened the past few years. They're paying big money for teams that draw lots of viewers. Unfortunately, Stanford and Cal football games on tv haven't consistently drawn enough viewers. That's why both are on the outside looking in. If it was up to the Chancellors / Presidents of the member universities, Stanford would already be in the B1G Ten. Alas, no current B1G Ten member is willing to take a smaller share of the (media rights revenue) pie to admit a program or two that would be dilutive. Oregon and Washington will receive only a partial share for the duration of the B1G Ten media rights contracts that begin in 2024 -- and FOX ponied up additional money -- so there is no dilution. USC and UCLA -- as members of the B1G Ten -- were factored into the negotiated media rights contracts so both will receive a full share upon joining the conference.
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford and perhaps Cal make their way to the B1G Ten in a few years. Hopefully I'm right about Stanford, as good tickets for a game at Ohio State or Nebraska can be a challenge to get at a decent price. And in November, the weather in Palo Alto will probably be better than in Columbus or Lincoln.
Make no mistake, FOX and ESPN are calling the shots in the realignment that has happened the past few years. They're paying big money for teams that draw lots of viewers. Unfortunately, Stanford and Cal football games on tv haven't consistently drawn enough viewers. That's why both are on the outside looking in. If it was up to the Chancellors / Presidents of the member universities, Stanford would already be in the B1G Ten. Alas, no current B1G Ten member is willing to take a smaller share of the (media rights revenue) pie to admit a program or two that would be dilutive. Oregon and Washington will receive only a partial share for the duration of the B1G Ten media rights contracts that begin in 2024 -- and FOX ponied up additional money -- so there is no dilution. USC and UCLA -- as members of the B1G Ten -- were factored into the negotiated media rights contracts so both will receive a full share upon joining the conference.
That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Stanford and perhaps Cal make their way to the B1G Ten in a few years. Hopefully I'm right about Stanford, as good tickets for a game at Ohio State or Nebraska can be a challenge to get at a decent price. And in November, the weather in Palo Alto will probably be better than in Columbus or Lincoln.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »