[Mick]

Things I learned in Wilner's article this morning:

1) Two of the four ACC schools who voted against Stanford (Florida State, Clemson, UNC, NC State) are considering leaving the ACC. Florida State has made their displeasure known publicly, Clemson has expressed it privately. Rumor is also that North Carolina would like to leave but can't find a suitor. Both schools (or any others) need to make that decision by this Thursday if they want to leave the conference next season. If FSU and Clemson decide to go elsewhere, then the voting percentages work in favor of Stanford and Cal.

2) Fox believed that UW and UO were worth an additional $375 million over six years, but Stanford and Cal are not. He claims we'll know if there's a workable number in the next few weeks.

3) Adding Stanford and Cal would greatly benefit Olympic sports athletes on all Big 10 campuses.

4) The UC regents can force UCLA to pay Cal between $2 million and $10 million annually, said total being based on the "best available information on projected revenues for both campuses." So UCLA has a lot riding on Cal's landing in the ACC or Big 10 conference. And having a six team west coast pod would benefit all former Pac-12 schools.

5) I was under the assumption that the $4xx hundred million in NCAA and television revenue due to Pac-12 teams would go solely to the remaining four teams. Apparently there is (surprise, surprise) a legal battle in which the Traitorous Eight both want to leave the conference AND be entitled to the conference spoils, this according to WSU president and current Pac-12 lead Kirk Schulz.

Stinks that the #31 and #45 football programs of all time can't find a conference:
https://collegefootballnews.com/rankings...f-all-time

[Mick]

Things I learned in Wilner's article this morning:

1) Two of the four ACC schools who voted against Stanford (Florida State, Clemson, UNC, NC State) are considering leaving the ACC. Florida State has made their displeasure known publicly, Clemson has expressed it privately. Rumor is also that North Carolina would like to leave but can't find a suitor. Both schools (or any others) need to make that decision by this Thursday if they want to leave the conference next season. If FSU and Clemson decide to go elsewhere, then the voting percentages work in favor of Stanford and Cal.

2) Fox believed that UW and UO were worth an additional $375 million over six years, but Stanford and Cal are not. He claims we'll know if there's a workable number in the next few weeks.

3) Adding Stanford and Cal would greatly benefit Olympic sports athletes on all Big 10 campuses.

4) The UC regents can force UCLA to pay Cal between $2 million and $10 million annually, said total being based on the "best available information on projected revenues for both campuses." So UCLA has a lot riding on Cal's landing in the ACC or Big 10 conference. And having a six team west coast pod would benefit all former Pac-12 schools.

5) I was under the assumption that the $4xx hundred million in NCAA and television revenue due to Pac-12 teams would go solely to the remaining four teams. Apparently there is (surprise, surprise) a legal battle in which the Traitorous Eight both want to leave the conference AND be entitled to the conference spoils, this according to WSU president and current Pac-12 lead Kirk Schulz.

Stinks that the #31 and #45 football programs of all time can't find a conference:
https://collegefootballnews.com/rankings...f-all-time

[Goose]

If indeed it is true that the PAC-12 rejected an offer from ESPN that was on a par with the BIG-12 situation (around 30 million per school) and held out for 51 million per school at the direction of the University presidents, clearly the PAC-12 deserved what happened to it. Indeed the Commissioner should have told the group that simply wasn't possible. If he did not, he obviously was unethical/incompetent.  In so far as any of this is true, it was a suicide by stupidity, not a murder. I am not a fan of the money game controlling college athletics, as I think few on this board are. However, it appears that the TV folks were willing to continue the Potlatch, at least for a while longer. Schools can be greedy too, not just TV executives.

[Goose]

If indeed it is true that the PAC-12 rejected an offer from ESPN that was on a par with the BIG-12 situation (around 30 million per school) and held out for 51 million per school at the direction of the University presidents, clearly the PAC-12 deserved what happened to it. Indeed the Commissioner should have told the group that simply wasn't possible. If he did not, he obviously was unethical/incompetent.  In so far as any of this is true, it was a suicide by stupidity, not a murder. I am not a fan of the money game controlling college athletics, as I think few on this board are. However, it appears that the TV folks were willing to continue the Potlatch, at least for a while longer. Schools can be greedy too, not just TV executives.

[dabigv13]

If indeed it is true that the PAC-12 rejected an offer from ESPN that was on a par with the BIG-12 situation (around 30 million per school) and held out for 51 million per school at the direction of the University presidents, clearly the PAC-12 deserved what happened to it. Indeed the Commissioner should have told the group that simply wasn't possible. If he did not, he obviously was unethical/incompetent.  In so far as any of this is true, it was a suicide by stupidity, not a murder. I am not a fan of the money game controlling college athletics, as I think few on this board are. However, it appears that the TV folks were willing to continue the Potlatch, at least for a while longer. Schools can be greedy too, not just TV executives.

I think the suspicion is the two schools who wanted the 50 mil were UO and UW. So they may have sabotaged the Pac just like SC sabotaged the Pac by blocking expansion talks with B12 schools while already with one foot in the B10.

[dabigv13]

If indeed it is true that the PAC-12 rejected an offer from ESPN that was on a par with the BIG-12 situation (around 30 million per school) and held out for 51 million per school at the direction of the University presidents, clearly the PAC-12 deserved what happened to it. Indeed the Commissioner should have told the group that simply wasn't possible. If he did not, he obviously was unethical/incompetent.  In so far as any of this is true, it was a suicide by stupidity, not a murder. I am not a fan of the money game controlling college athletics, as I think few on this board are. However, it appears that the TV folks were willing to continue the Potlatch, at least for a while longer. Schools can be greedy too, not just TV executives.

I think the suspicion is the two schools who wanted the 50 mil were UO and UW. So they may have sabotaged the Pac just like SC sabotaged the Pac by blocking expansion talks with B12 schools while already with one foot in the B10.

[Goose]

If indeed it is true that the PAC-12 rejected an offer from ESPN that was on a par with the BIG-12 situation (around 30 million per school) and held out for 51 million per school at the direction of the University presidents, clearly the PAC-12 deserved what happened to it. Indeed the Commissioner should have told the group that simply wasn't possible. If he did not, he obviously was unethical/incompetent.  In so far as any of this is true, it was a suicide by stupidity, not a murder. I am not a fan of the money game controlling college athletics, as I think few on this board are. However, it appears that the TV folks were willing to continue the Potlatch, at least for a while longer. Schools can be greedy too, not just TV executives.

I think the suspicion is the two schools who wanted the 50 mil were UO and UW. So they may have sabotaged the Pac just like SC sabotaged the Pac by blocking expansion talks with B12 schools while already with one foot in the B10.

Maybe, but the other schools didn't have to just sit there and nod. Holding out for "more" is always an option, but if that simply isn't realistic, the Commissioner should have said so and refused to sign up to do it. UO and UW had no reasonable expectation that their admission to the B1G was probable a year ago. They ended up accepting half shares which are not near 51 million. The  8 others should have simply out voted them and/or there should have been a "stay or go" discussion right then. Postponing the disaster a year (assuming UO and UW wouldn't "play ball") gave everybody less time to plan a response.

[Goose]

If indeed it is true that the PAC-12 rejected an offer from ESPN that was on a par with the BIG-12 situation (around 30 million per school) and held out for 51 million per school at the direction of the University presidents, clearly the PAC-12 deserved what happened to it. Indeed the Commissioner should have told the group that simply wasn't possible. If he did not, he obviously was unethical/incompetent.  In so far as any of this is true, it was a suicide by stupidity, not a murder. I am not a fan of the money game controlling college athletics, as I think few on this board are. However, it appears that the TV folks were willing to continue the Potlatch, at least for a while longer. Schools can be greedy too, not just TV executives.

I think the suspicion is the two schools who wanted the 50 mil were UO and UW. So they may have sabotaged the Pac just like SC sabotaged the Pac by blocking expansion talks with B12 schools while already with one foot in the B10.

Maybe, but the other schools didn't have to just sit there and nod. Holding out for "more" is always an option, but if that simply isn't realistic, the Commissioner should have said so and refused to sign up to do it. UO and UW had no reasonable expectation that their admission to the B1G was probable a year ago. They ended up accepting half shares which are not near 51 million. The  8 others should have simply out voted them and/or there should have been a "stay or go" discussion right then. Postponing the disaster a year (assuming UO and UW wouldn't "play ball") gave everybody less time to plan a response.

[Mick]

If indeed it is true that the PAC-12 rejected an offer from ESPN that was on a par with the BIG-12 situation (around 30 million per school) and held out for 51 million per school at the direction of the University presidents, clearly the PAC-12 deserved what happened to it. Indeed the Commissioner should have told the group that simply wasn't possible. If he did not, he obviously was unethical/incompetent.  In so far as any of this is true, it was a suicide by stupidity, not a murder. I am not a fan of the money game controlling college athletics, as I think few on this board are. However, it appears that the TV folks were willing to continue the Potlatch, at least for a while longer. Schools can be greedy too, not just TV executives.

I think the suspicion is the two schools who wanted the 50 mil were UO and UW. So they may have sabotaged the Pac just like SC sabotaged the Pac by blocking expansion talks with B12 schools while already with one foot in the B10.

Thinking back to the timing of the conference football decisions, Stanford had, in the not terribly distant past, won 8+ games (averaging 9.6 wins) and went to bowl games for ten seasons in a row, and David Shaw was being heavily recruited by the NFL. It wasn't such a stretch to think they were worth more than they were.

Stanford has now averaged 3.5 wins for the last four seasons.  They have an FBS head coach, a flood of players who departed via the portal and long-term dwindling fan support.  I think potential success in the major conferences, B1G included, is a considerable stretch. I'm a firm believer that you put people -- children, students, employees, teams, organizations -- in a position where they can be most successful. I think Stanford -- and Cal -- are most likely to be successful in a lesser conference, one in which the vagaries of the NIL market and the transfer portal will be less prevalent; e.g., the MWC. Rebrand the MWC as the PAC-16, and it will lift the boats of all teams considered...and Stanford and Cal will once again have seasons when they will average 10 wins or so. Better travel, lesser opponents, better records. And the locations are either close (SJSU) or fun to visit (San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc.) Maybe Stanford will travel well, and maybe our opponents will travel well.

Just as an aside...it's odd to me that the SEC, B1G and ACC didn't want more of the PAC teams. Every conference needs doormats (or perceived doormats), and in the race to limit conference opponents to the most successful teams, the average number of wins will likely drop. The 8 win teams become 6 win teams, the 10 win teams become 8 win teams. What happens then? I'm recommending that Stanford move in the opposite direction. Just food for thought.

[Mick]

If indeed it is true that the PAC-12 rejected an offer from ESPN that was on a par with the BIG-12 situation (around 30 million per school) and held out for 51 million per school at the direction of the University presidents, clearly the PAC-12 deserved what happened to it. Indeed the Commissioner should have told the group that simply wasn't possible. If he did not, he obviously was unethical/incompetent.  In so far as any of this is true, it was a suicide by stupidity, not a murder. I am not a fan of the money game controlling college athletics, as I think few on this board are. However, it appears that the TV folks were willing to continue the Potlatch, at least for a while longer. Schools can be greedy too, not just TV executives.

I think the suspicion is the two schools who wanted the 50 mil were UO and UW. So they may have sabotaged the Pac just like SC sabotaged the Pac by blocking expansion talks with B12 schools while already with one foot in the B10.

Thinking back to the timing of the conference football decisions, Stanford had, in the not terribly distant past, won 8+ games (averaging 9.6 wins) and went to bowl games for ten seasons in a row, and David Shaw was being heavily recruited by the NFL. It wasn't such a stretch to think they were worth more than they were.

Stanford has now averaged 3.5 wins for the last four seasons.  They have an FBS head coach, a flood of players who departed via the portal and long-term dwindling fan support.  I think potential success in the major conferences, B1G included, is a considerable stretch. I'm a firm believer that you put people -- children, students, employees, teams, organizations -- in a position where they can be most successful. I think Stanford -- and Cal -- are most likely to be successful in a lesser conference, one in which the vagaries of the NIL market and the transfer portal will be less prevalent; e.g., the MWC. Rebrand the MWC as the PAC-16, and it will lift the boats of all teams considered...and Stanford and Cal will once again have seasons when they will average 10 wins or so. Better travel, lesser opponents, better records. And the locations are either close (SJSU) or fun to visit (San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc.) Maybe Stanford will travel well, and maybe our opponents will travel well.

Just as an aside...it's odd to me that the SEC, B1G and ACC didn't want more of the PAC teams. Every conference needs doormats (or perceived doormats), and in the race to limit conference opponents to the most successful teams, the average number of wins will likely drop. The 8 win teams become 6 win teams, the 10 win teams become 8 win teams. What happens then? I'm recommending that Stanford move in the opposite direction. Just food for thought.

[dabigv13]

If your top properties want out, it may be hard or impossible to stop them in this setting. 

I agree with you that ideally the other schools should have done more but we don't know how feasible that would have been. If the other 8 schools told UW and UO to sign or leave, the 30 million deal maybe becomes a 15 million deal, or no deal.

We also don't know just how open B10 was to UW and UO before. It all happened pretty darn quick when it happened, didnt it. And the partial shares will become full shares soon.

The B10 were always going to have more money to throw around than Pac, in pretty much any media scenario, just based on demographics and time zones. Maybe unequal shares keeps SC and UW etc for a time but it still seems an unstable situation.

The biggest mistake IMHO for the PAC was not expanding sooner, but I admit I wouldn't have really been too keen on taking B12 schools like TCU or OK State at the time.

[dabigv13]

If your top properties want out, it may be hard or impossible to stop them in this setting. 

I agree with you that ideally the other schools should have done more but we don't know how feasible that would have been. If the other 8 schools told UW and UO to sign or leave, the 30 million deal maybe becomes a 15 million deal, or no deal.

We also don't know just how open B10 was to UW and UO before. It all happened pretty darn quick when it happened, didnt it. And the partial shares will become full shares soon.

The B10 were always going to have more money to throw around than Pac, in pretty much any media scenario, just based on demographics and time zones. Maybe unequal shares keeps SC and UW etc for a time but it still seems an unstable situation.

The biggest mistake IMHO for the PAC was not expanding sooner, but I admit I wouldn't have really been too keen on taking B12 schools like TCU or OK State at the time.

[Goose]

If your top properties want out, it may be hard or impossible to stop them in this setting. 

I agree with you that ideally the other schools should have done more but we don't know how feasible that would have been. If the other 8 schools told UW and UO to sign or leave, the 30 million deal maybe becomes a 15 million deal, or no deal.

I agree, but if that was inevitably going to happen anyway, better to know it sooner than later. The "mirage" of a 50 million dollar deal may have kept everybody in the fantasy world that it was all going to "work out". The remaining 8 schools would have been better off knowing that was the case 12 months ago, especially if it was going to be "no deal". That was for sure feasible.

We also don't know just how open B10 was to UW and UO before. It all happened pretty darn quick when it happened, didnt it. And the partial shares will become full shares soon.

As I understand it, UO and UW will get $30 million in 2024, increasing by $1 million a year until 2030 when they will begin receiving a full share of the purported $1.1 billion payout on a new deal to be executed in the future. $30m << $50M. Nobody knows what will be true in 2030, so expecting a very large payout then is a significant risk. IMO it happened fast because it was a "fire sale". Everybody wanted to bail and would take what was on offer. Utah and ASU didn't want to go to the BIG-12, but they had no choice. Robby Robbins at UofA was smart enough to see this coming and spent the year developing an option for UofA that by all rights they didn't "deserve". UO and UW took half shares (unlike USC and UCLA) because they had to.

The B10 were always going to have more money to throw around than Pac, in pretty much any media scenario, just based on demographics and time zones. Maybe unequal shares keeps SC and UW etc for a time but it still seems an unstable situation.

The biggest mistake IMHO for the PAC was not expanding sooner, but I admit I wouldn't have really been too keen on taking B12 schools like TCU or OK State at the time.

Agree that unequal revenue distribution as a permanent feature in any conference is going to be difficult to manage and probably unstable. It may work in an "up" market where the pie is getting bigger so everyone's share is getting bigger. It will undoubtedly not work when the pie is shrinking and everyone has bills to pay that they can no longer fund. Equal shares match a model where the revenue raised by the sport is incidental to the activity. When the revenue itself becomes the goal of the activity, that changes and all hell breaks loose. Here we area

[Goose]

If your top properties want out, it may be hard or impossible to stop them in this setting. 

I agree with you that ideally the other schools should have done more but we don't know how feasible that would have been. If the other 8 schools told UW and UO to sign or leave, the 30 million deal maybe becomes a 15 million deal, or no deal.

I agree, but if that was inevitably going to happen anyway, better to know it sooner than later. The "mirage" of a 50 million dollar deal may have kept everybody in the fantasy world that it was all going to "work out". The remaining 8 schools would have been better off knowing that was the case 12 months ago, especially if it was going to be "no deal". That was for sure feasible.

We also don't know just how open B10 was to UW and UO before. It all happened pretty darn quick when it happened, didnt it. And the partial shares will become full shares soon.

As I understand it, UO and UW will get $30 million in 2024, increasing by $1 million a year until 2030 when they will begin receiving a full share of the purported $1.1 billion payout on a new deal to be executed in the future. $30m << $50M. Nobody knows what will be true in 2030, so expecting a very large payout then is a significant risk. IMO it happened fast because it was a "fire sale". Everybody wanted to bail and would take what was on offer. Utah and ASU didn't want to go to the BIG-12, but they had no choice. Robby Robbins at UofA was smart enough to see this coming and spent the year developing an option for UofA that by all rights they didn't "deserve". UO and UW took half shares (unlike USC and UCLA) because they had to.

The B10 were always going to have more money to throw around than Pac, in pretty much any media scenario, just based on demographics and time zones. Maybe unequal shares keeps SC and UW etc for a time but it still seems an unstable situation.

The biggest mistake IMHO for the PAC was not expanding sooner, but I admit I wouldn't have really been too keen on taking B12 schools like TCU or OK State at the time.

Agree that unequal revenue distribution as a permanent feature in any conference is going to be difficult to manage and probably unstable. It may work in an "up" market where the pie is getting bigger so everyone's share is getting bigger. It will undoubtedly not work when the pie is shrinking and everyone has bills to pay that they can no longer fund. Equal shares match a model where the revenue raised by the sport is incidental to the activity. When the revenue itself becomes the goal of the activity, that changes and all hell breaks loose. Here we area

[CardinalSagehen]

Thinking back to the timing of the conference football decisions, Stanford had, in the not terribly distant past, won 8+ games (averaging 9.6 wins) and went to bowl games for ten seasons in a row, and David Shaw was being heavily recruited by the NFL. It wasn't such a stretch to think they were worth more than they were.

Stanford has now averaged 3.5 wins for the last four seasons.  They have an FBS head coach, a flood of players who departed via the portal and long-term dwindling fan support.  I think potential success in the major conferences, B1G included, is a considerable stretch. I'm a firm believer that you put people -- children, students, employees, teams, organizations -- in a position where they can be most successful. I think Stanford -- and Cal -- are most likely to be successful in a lesser conference, one in which the vagaries of the NIL market and the transfer portal will be less prevalent; e.g., the MWC. Rebrand the MWC as the PAC-16, and it will lift the boats of all teams considered...and Stanford and Cal will once again have seasons when they will average 10 wins or so. Better travel, lesser opponents, better records. And the locations are either close (SJSU) or fun to visit (San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc.) Maybe Stanford will travel well, and maybe our opponents will travel well.

Just as an aside...it's odd to me that the SEC, B1G and ACC didn't want more of the PAC teams. Every conference needs doormats (or perceived doormats), and in the race to limit conference opponents to the most successful teams, the average number of wins will likely drop. The 8 win teams become 6 win teams, the 10 win teams become 8 win teams. What happens then? I'm recommending that Stanford move in the opposite direction. Just food for thought.

I think there is some recency bias in this post.

I do not believe Stanford will settle for the Mountain West in football, and I do not agree that it would be a good thing. 

I also would not characterize Stanford's appeal to a major conference as a "doormat".

The new era of college football realistically does not allow Stanford to compete for national championships, as might have been thinkable in 2010-2015. However, I do think it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team (not this year, but in the long run) with occasional breakout seasons.  And I think that's how it will end up.

[CardinalSagehen]

Thinking back to the timing of the conference football decisions, Stanford had, in the not terribly distant past, won 8+ games (averaging 9.6 wins) and went to bowl games for ten seasons in a row, and David Shaw was being heavily recruited by the NFL. It wasn't such a stretch to think they were worth more than they were.

Stanford has now averaged 3.5 wins for the last four seasons.  They have an FBS head coach, a flood of players who departed via the portal and long-term dwindling fan support.  I think potential success in the major conferences, B1G included, is a considerable stretch. I'm a firm believer that you put people -- children, students, employees, teams, organizations -- in a position where they can be most successful. I think Stanford -- and Cal -- are most likely to be successful in a lesser conference, one in which the vagaries of the NIL market and the transfer portal will be less prevalent; e.g., the MWC. Rebrand the MWC as the PAC-16, and it will lift the boats of all teams considered...and Stanford and Cal will once again have seasons when they will average 10 wins or so. Better travel, lesser opponents, better records. And the locations are either close (SJSU) or fun to visit (San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc.) Maybe Stanford will travel well, and maybe our opponents will travel well.

Just as an aside...it's odd to me that the SEC, B1G and ACC didn't want more of the PAC teams. Every conference needs doormats (or perceived doormats), and in the race to limit conference opponents to the most successful teams, the average number of wins will likely drop. The 8 win teams become 6 win teams, the 10 win teams become 8 win teams. What happens then? I'm recommending that Stanford move in the opposite direction. Just food for thought.

I think there is some recency bias in this post.

I do not believe Stanford will settle for the Mountain West in football, and I do not agree that it would be a good thing. 

I also would not characterize Stanford's appeal to a major conference as a "doormat".

The new era of college football realistically does not allow Stanford to compete for national championships, as might have been thinkable in 2010-2015. However, I do think it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team (not this year, but in the long run) with occasional breakout seasons.  And I think that's how it will end up.

[gocard14]

If your top properties want out, it may be hard or impossible to stop them in this setting. 

I agree with you that ideally the other schools should have done more but we don't know how feasible that would have been. If the other 8 schools told UW and UO to sign or leave, the 30 million deal maybe becomes a 15 million deal, or no deal.

I agree, but if that was inevitably going to happen anyway, better to know it sooner than later. The "mirage" of a 50 million dollar deal may have kept everybody in the fantasy world that it was all going to "work out". The remaining 8 schools would have been better off knowing that was the case 12 months ago, especially if it was going to be "no deal". That was for sure feasible.

We also don't know just how open B10 was to UW and UO before. It all happened pretty darn quick when it happened, didnt it. And the partial shares will become full shares soon.

As I understand it, UO and UW will get $30 million in 2024, increasing by $1 million a year until 2030 when they will begin receiving a full share of the purported $1.1 billion payout on a new deal to be executed in the future. $30m << $50M. Nobody knows what will be true in 2030, so expecting a very large payout then is a significant risk. IMO it happened fast because it was a "fire sale". Everybody wanted to bail and would take what was on offer. Utah and ASU didn't want to go to the BIG-12, but they had no choice. Robby Robbins at UofA was smart enough to see this coming and spent the year developing an option for UofA that by all rights they didn't "deserve". UO and UW took half shares (unlike USC and UCLA) because they had to.

The B10 were always going to have more money to throw around than Pac, in pretty much any media scenario, just based on demographics and time zones. Maybe unequal shares keeps SC and UW etc for a time but it still seems an unstable situation.

The biggest mistake IMHO for the PAC was not expanding sooner, but I admit I wouldn't have really been too keen on taking B12 schools like TCU or OK State at the time.

Agree that unequal revenue distribution as a permanent feature in any conference is going to be difficult to manage and probably unstable. It may work in an "up" market where the pie is getting bigger so everyone's share is getting bigger. It will undoubtedly not work when the pie is shrinking and everyone has bills to pay that they can no longer fund. Equal shares match a model where the revenue raised by the sport is incidental to the activity. When the revenue itself becomes the goal of the activity, that changes and all hell breaks loose. Here we area

I disagree about the inherent instability of unequal revenue sharing and would actually argue the opposite. As long as there are schools doing the heavy lifting in terms of eyeballs, prime TV slots, etc but getting the same money as Northwestern and Vanderbilt, there will be those thinking they can and should be doing better. In my view the rapidly growing pie has quelled these concerns. But once the pie stops growing and taboo/tradition have already been destroyed; it's anyone's game. Plenty of leagues (like MLB) have shown you can have unequal TV money and still compete.

I foresee a world in which there are 2-3 super conferences where revenue is divvied by a formula which gives all schools some baseline plus big bonus pay outs based on viewership, TV slot selection, etc. 

Ironically while this would be bad for northwestern and Purdue, it would be good for Stanford since it may reduce resistance to expansion of the big conferences since there would be less risk of dilution of the pie.

[gocard14]

If your top properties want out, it may be hard or impossible to stop them in this setting. 

I agree with you that ideally the other schools should have done more but we don't know how feasible that would have been. If the other 8 schools told UW and UO to sign or leave, the 30 million deal maybe becomes a 15 million deal, or no deal.

I agree, but if that was inevitably going to happen anyway, better to know it sooner than later. The "mirage" of a 50 million dollar deal may have kept everybody in the fantasy world that it was all going to "work out". The remaining 8 schools would have been better off knowing that was the case 12 months ago, especially if it was going to be "no deal". That was for sure feasible.

We also don't know just how open B10 was to UW and UO before. It all happened pretty darn quick when it happened, didnt it. And the partial shares will become full shares soon.

As I understand it, UO and UW will get $30 million in 2024, increasing by $1 million a year until 2030 when they will begin receiving a full share of the purported $1.1 billion payout on a new deal to be executed in the future. $30m << $50M. Nobody knows what will be true in 2030, so expecting a very large payout then is a significant risk. IMO it happened fast because it was a "fire sale". Everybody wanted to bail and would take what was on offer. Utah and ASU didn't want to go to the BIG-12, but they had no choice. Robby Robbins at UofA was smart enough to see this coming and spent the year developing an option for UofA that by all rights they didn't "deserve". UO and UW took half shares (unlike USC and UCLA) because they had to.

The B10 were always going to have more money to throw around than Pac, in pretty much any media scenario, just based on demographics and time zones. Maybe unequal shares keeps SC and UW etc for a time but it still seems an unstable situation.

The biggest mistake IMHO for the PAC was not expanding sooner, but I admit I wouldn't have really been too keen on taking B12 schools like TCU or OK State at the time.

Agree that unequal revenue distribution as a permanent feature in any conference is going to be difficult to manage and probably unstable. It may work in an "up" market where the pie is getting bigger so everyone's share is getting bigger. It will undoubtedly not work when the pie is shrinking and everyone has bills to pay that they can no longer fund. Equal shares match a model where the revenue raised by the sport is incidental to the activity. When the revenue itself becomes the goal of the activity, that changes and all hell breaks loose. Here we area

I disagree about the inherent instability of unequal revenue sharing and would actually argue the opposite. As long as there are schools doing the heavy lifting in terms of eyeballs, prime TV slots, etc but getting the same money as Northwestern and Vanderbilt, there will be those thinking they can and should be doing better. In my view the rapidly growing pie has quelled these concerns. But once the pie stops growing and taboo/tradition have already been destroyed; it's anyone's game. Plenty of leagues (like MLB) have shown you can have unequal TV money and still compete.

I foresee a world in which there are 2-3 super conferences where revenue is divvied by a formula which gives all schools some baseline plus big bonus pay outs based on viewership, TV slot selection, etc. 

Ironically while this would be bad for northwestern and Purdue, it would be good for Stanford since it may reduce resistance to expansion of the big conferences since there would be less risk of dilution of the pie.

[Spiny_Norman]

I kind of like this scenario - Florida State and Clemson leave the ACC. The remaining 12 teams (including Notre Dame) merge with the 16 teams in the B12 and add the 4 P12 teams to create a 32 team conference that can easily be organized into eight 4-team divisions (like the NFL). They need that size and reach to challenge the B10 and SEC. Call it the Big PAC (Pacific to Atlantic Conference).

[Spiny_Norman]

I kind of like this scenario - Florida State and Clemson leave the ACC. The remaining 12 teams (including Notre Dame) merge with the 16 teams in the B12 and add the 4 P12 teams to create a 32 team conference that can easily be organized into eight 4-team divisions (like the NFL). They need that size and reach to challenge the B10 and SEC. Call it the Big PAC (Pacific to Atlantic Conference).

[Mick]

I kind of like this scenario - Florida State and Clemson leave the ACC. The remaining 12 teams (including Notre Dame) merge with the 16 teams in the B12 and add the 4 P12 teams to create a 32 team conference that can easily be organized into eight 4-team divisions (like the NFL). They need that size and reach to challenge the B10 and SEC. Call it the Big PAC (Pacific to Atlantic Conference).

Oh I like that idea. Or even four, eight-team divisions. So it might line up like:

West. AZ, ASU, BYU, Cal, CO, Or St., Stan, UT, WSU
Southwest, Baylor, Houston, Kansas, KSU, Okla, Ok St., TCU, TexTech, Texas
South. Cincinnati, GaTech, Iowa St, Louisville, Miami, NC State, UNC, UCF
East. BC, Duke, ND, Pitt, Syr, VA, VATech, WVa

[Mick]

I kind of like this scenario - Florida State and Clemson leave the ACC. The remaining 12 teams (including Notre Dame) merge with the 16 teams in the B12 and add the 4 P12 teams to create a 32 team conference that can easily be organized into eight 4-team divisions (like the NFL). They need that size and reach to challenge the B10 and SEC. Call it the Big PAC (Pacific to Atlantic Conference).

Oh I like that idea. Or even four, eight-team divisions. So it might line up like:

West. AZ, ASU, BYU, Cal, CO, Or St., Stan, UT, WSU
Southwest, Baylor, Houston, Kansas, KSU, Okla, Ok St., TCU, TexTech, Texas
South. Cincinnati, GaTech, Iowa St, Louisville, Miami, NC State, UNC, UCF
East. BC, Duke, ND, Pitt, Syr, VA, VATech, WVa

[Spiny_Norman]

I kind of like this scenario - Florida State and Clemson leave the ACC. The remaining 12 teams (including Notre Dame) merge with the 16 teams in the B12 and add the 4 P12 teams to create a 32 team conference that can easily be organized into eight 4-team divisions (like the NFL). They need that size and reach to challenge the B10 and SEC. Call it the Big PAC (Pacific to Atlantic Conference).

Oh I like that idea. Or even four, eight-team divisions. So it might line up like:

West. AZ, ASU, BYU, Cal, CO, Or St., Stan, UT, WSU
Southwest, Baylor, Houston, Kansas, KSU, Okla, Ok St., TCU, TexTech, Texas
South. Cincinnati, GaTech, Iowa St, Louisville, Miami, NC State, UNC, UCF
East. BC, Duke, ND, Pitt, Syr, VA, VATech, WVa

Mick, you have 9 teams in the West. Move 1 to the Southwest (which also has 9) and remove Oklahoma and Texas. They are gone to the SEC.

[Spiny_Norman]

I kind of like this scenario - Florida State and Clemson leave the ACC. The remaining 12 teams (including Notre Dame) merge with the 16 teams in the B12 and add the 4 P12 teams to create a 32 team conference that can easily be organized into eight 4-team divisions (like the NFL). They need that size and reach to challenge the B10 and SEC. Call it the Big PAC (Pacific to Atlantic Conference).

Oh I like that idea. Or even four, eight-team divisions. So it might line up like:

West. AZ, ASU, BYU, Cal, CO, Or St., Stan, UT, WSU
Southwest, Baylor, Houston, Kansas, KSU, Okla, Ok St., TCU, TexTech, Texas
South. Cincinnati, GaTech, Iowa St, Louisville, Miami, NC State, UNC, UCF
East. BC, Duke, ND, Pitt, Syr, VA, VATech, WVa

Mick, you have 9 teams in the West. Move 1 to the Southwest (which also has 9) and remove Oklahoma and Texas. They are gone to the SEC.

[Mick]

Thinking back to the timing of the conference football decisions, Stanford had, in the not terribly distant past, won 8+ games (averaging 9.6 wins) and went to bowl games for ten seasons in a row, and David Shaw was being heavily recruited by the NFL. It wasn't such a stretch to think they were worth more than they were.

Stanford has now averaged 3.5 wins for the last four seasons.  They have an FBS head coach, a flood of players who departed via the portal and long-term dwindling fan support.  I think potential success in the major conferences, B1G included, is a considerable stretch. I'm a firm believer that you put people -- children, students, employees, teams, organizations -- in a position where they can be most successful. I think Stanford -- and Cal -- are most likely to be successful in a lesser conference, one in which the vagaries of the NIL market and the transfer portal will be less prevalent; e.g., the MWC. Rebrand the MWC as the PAC-16, and it will lift the boats of all teams considered...and Stanford and Cal will once again have seasons when they will average 10 wins or so. Better travel, lesser opponents, better records. And the locations are either close (SJSU) or fun to visit (San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc.) Maybe Stanford will travel well, and maybe our opponents will travel well.

Just as an aside...it's odd to me that the SEC, B1G and ACC didn't want more of the PAC teams. Every conference needs doormats (or perceived doormats), and in the race to limit conference opponents to the most successful teams, the average number of wins will likely drop. The 8 win teams become 6 win teams, the 10 win teams become 8 win teams. What happens then? I'm recommending that Stanford move in the opposite direction. Just food for thought.

I think there is some recency bias in this post.

I do not believe Stanford will settle for the Mountain West in football, and I do not agree that it would be a good thing. 

I also would not characterize Stanford's appeal to a major conference as a "doormat".

The new era of college football realistically does not allow Stanford to compete for national championships, as might have been thinkable in 2010-2015. However, I do think it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team (not this year, but in the long run) with occasional breakout seasons.  And I think that's how it will end up.

Oh for sure, there's some recency bias. I was referring, roughly, to the years which covered the new portal and NIL environment. I think those market dynamics are emblematic of the last four years. As to whether it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team over the long run, well...in terms of winning versus losing seasons since 1979, Stanford is 19-24-1. Seems to be that below average is our average season. And I think if we want to turn around that long term trend, I think we need less challenging competition, particularly given our reluctance to enter the arms race.

As for the "doormat" comment...I was referencing all of the Pac-12 in toto, particularly apart from USC, UCLA, OU and UW. Last year, the Pac 12 ranked 4th among conferences, but was 6th in 2021 (and behind the MWC). If a conference is composed solely of Top 25 (or top 50) teams, then my point was that there will be more losses, given the nature of the competition. And given the PERCEIVED quality of those eight Pac-12 teams, it surprises me that the other conferences would not want to include teams that conference leadership/other coaches think are more likely to wind up with losing records.

College football conferences ranked, from Big Ten to MAC - Sports Illustrated

Ranking Every College Football Conference After the 2022 Season | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report

[Mick]

Thinking back to the timing of the conference football decisions, Stanford had, in the not terribly distant past, won 8+ games (averaging 9.6 wins) and went to bowl games for ten seasons in a row, and David Shaw was being heavily recruited by the NFL. It wasn't such a stretch to think they were worth more than they were.

Stanford has now averaged 3.5 wins for the last four seasons.  They have an FBS head coach, a flood of players who departed via the portal and long-term dwindling fan support.  I think potential success in the major conferences, B1G included, is a considerable stretch. I'm a firm believer that you put people -- children, students, employees, teams, organizations -- in a position where they can be most successful. I think Stanford -- and Cal -- are most likely to be successful in a lesser conference, one in which the vagaries of the NIL market and the transfer portal will be less prevalent; e.g., the MWC. Rebrand the MWC as the PAC-16, and it will lift the boats of all teams considered...and Stanford and Cal will once again have seasons when they will average 10 wins or so. Better travel, lesser opponents, better records. And the locations are either close (SJSU) or fun to visit (San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc.) Maybe Stanford will travel well, and maybe our opponents will travel well.

Just as an aside...it's odd to me that the SEC, B1G and ACC didn't want more of the PAC teams. Every conference needs doormats (or perceived doormats), and in the race to limit conference opponents to the most successful teams, the average number of wins will likely drop. The 8 win teams become 6 win teams, the 10 win teams become 8 win teams. What happens then? I'm recommending that Stanford move in the opposite direction. Just food for thought.

I think there is some recency bias in this post.

I do not believe Stanford will settle for the Mountain West in football, and I do not agree that it would be a good thing. 

I also would not characterize Stanford's appeal to a major conference as a "doormat".

The new era of college football realistically does not allow Stanford to compete for national championships, as might have been thinkable in 2010-2015. However, I do think it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team (not this year, but in the long run) with occasional breakout seasons.  And I think that's how it will end up.

Oh for sure, there's some recency bias. I was referring, roughly, to the years which covered the new portal and NIL environment. I think those market dynamics are emblematic of the last four years. As to whether it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team over the long run, well...in terms of winning versus losing seasons since 1979, Stanford is 19-24-1. Seems to be that below average is our average season. And I think if we want to turn around that long term trend, I think we need less challenging competition, particularly given our reluctance to enter the arms race.

As for the "doormat" comment...I was referencing all of the Pac-12 in toto, particularly apart from USC, UCLA, OU and UW. Last year, the Pac 12 ranked 4th among conferences, but was 6th in 2021 (and behind the MWC). If a conference is composed solely of Top 25 (or top 50) teams, then my point was that there will be more losses, given the nature of the competition. And given the PERCEIVED quality of those eight Pac-12 teams, it surprises me that the other conferences would not want to include teams that conference leadership/other coaches think are more likely to wind up with losing records.

College football conferences ranked, from Big Ten to MAC - Sports Illustrated

Ranking Every College Football Conference After the 2022 Season | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report

[Nobadeer]

Isn't Hawaii in the Mountain West? if so, we'll all get a sample of life in the MWC when LSJU visits Hawaii for the season opener later this month. (Wildfires permitting . . . )

[Nobadeer]

Isn't Hawaii in the Mountain West? if so, we'll all get a sample of life in the MWC when LSJU visits Hawaii for the season opener later this month. (Wildfires permitting . . . )

[Goose]

I disagree about the inherent instability of unequal revenue sharing and would actually argue the opposite. As long as there are schools doing the heavy lifting in terms of eyeballs, prime TV slots, etc but getting the same money as Northwestern and Vanderbilt, there will be those thinking they can and should be doing better. In my view the rapidly growing pie has quelled these concerns.

It would seem we agree on the pie growing dispelling the belief that "some should be more equal than others".

But once the pie stops growing and taboo/tradition have already been destroyed; it's anyone's game. Plenty of leagues (like MLB) have shown you can have unequal TV money and still compete.


I foresee a world in which there are 2-3 super conferences where revenue is divvied by a formula which gives all schools some baseline plus big bonus pay outs based on viewership, TV slot selection, etc.

The big difference between professional teams and universities is that professional teams are only concerned with their team and it's welfare, competitively and financially. Universities are not in that condition. Athletics is only one of the conglomerate's interests. As long as athletics is bringing in more money from an increasing pie, and as long as competition is viewed as "equal", nobody much cares. So, when the pie starts to shrink and athletics says "we are supposed to accept a 15% cut, Alabama took no cut", the university administration will simply not be willing to accept that. To do so, they have to admit they are second-class citizens. Better to say no. There is no way the conference can throw us out if we "bottom feeders" stick together. When that happens, you will get your described "super conferences", but in them everyone will be "equal". Universities don't make decisions like NFL/MLB teams do. They may accept temporary inequalities in order to make more money, but not permanent, structural ones. Too many ego's involved for that.

Ironically while this would be bad for northwestern and Purdue, it would be good for Stanford since it may reduce resistance to expansion of the big conferences since there would be less risk of dilution of the pie.

I want to be a fly on the wall when a proposal that Stanford join a conference where they would forever make less money than the "elite" members because "nobody" watches their games is presented. I don't think that proposal would last for a nanosecond.

[Goose]

I disagree about the inherent instability of unequal revenue sharing and would actually argue the opposite. As long as there are schools doing the heavy lifting in terms of eyeballs, prime TV slots, etc but getting the same money as Northwestern and Vanderbilt, there will be those thinking they can and should be doing better. In my view the rapidly growing pie has quelled these concerns.

It would seem we agree on the pie growing dispelling the belief that "some should be more equal than others".

But once the pie stops growing and taboo/tradition have already been destroyed; it's anyone's game. Plenty of leagues (like MLB) have shown you can have unequal TV money and still compete.


I foresee a world in which there are 2-3 super conferences where revenue is divvied by a formula which gives all schools some baseline plus big bonus pay outs based on viewership, TV slot selection, etc.

The big difference between professional teams and universities is that professional teams are only concerned with their team and it's welfare, competitively and financially. Universities are not in that condition. Athletics is only one of the conglomerate's interests. As long as athletics is bringing in more money from an increasing pie, and as long as competition is viewed as "equal", nobody much cares. So, when the pie starts to shrink and athletics says "we are supposed to accept a 15% cut, Alabama took no cut", the university administration will simply not be willing to accept that. To do so, they have to admit they are second-class citizens. Better to say no. There is no way the conference can throw us out if we "bottom feeders" stick together. When that happens, you will get your described "super conferences", but in them everyone will be "equal". Universities don't make decisions like NFL/MLB teams do. They may accept temporary inequalities in order to make more money, but not permanent, structural ones. Too many ego's involved for that.

Ironically while this would be bad for northwestern and Purdue, it would be good for Stanford since it may reduce resistance to expansion of the big conferences since there would be less risk of dilution of the pie.

I want to be a fly on the wall when a proposal that Stanford join a conference where they would forever make less money than the "elite" members because "nobody" watches their games is presented. I don't think that proposal would last for a nanosecond.

[d4cohn]

Thinking back to the timing of the conference football decisions, Stanford had, in the not terribly distant past, won 8+ games (averaging 9.6 wins) and went to bowl games for ten seasons in a row, and David Shaw was being heavily recruited by the NFL. It wasn't such a stretch to think they were worth more than they were.

Stanford has now averaged 3.5 wins for the last four seasons.  They have an FBS head coach, a flood of players who departed via the portal and long-term dwindling fan support.  I think potential success in the major conferences, B1G included, is a considerable stretch. I'm a firm believer that you put people -- children, students, employees, teams, organizations -- in a position where they can be most successful. I think Stanford -- and Cal -- are most likely to be successful in a lesser conference, one in which the vagaries of the NIL market and the transfer portal will be less prevalent; e.g., the MWC. Rebrand the MWC as the PAC-16, and it will lift the boats of all teams considered...and Stanford and Cal will once again have seasons when they will average 10 wins or so. Better travel, lesser opponents, better records. And the locations are either close (SJSU) or fun to visit (San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc.) Maybe Stanford will travel well, and maybe our opponents will travel well.

Just as an aside...it's odd to me that the SEC, B1G and ACC didn't want more of the PAC teams. Every conference needs doormats (or perceived doormats), and in the race to limit conference opponents to the most successful teams, the average number of wins will likely drop. The 8 win teams become 6 win teams, the 10 win teams become 8 win teams. What happens then? I'm recommending that Stanford move in the opposite direction. Just food for thought.

I think there is some recency bias in this post.

I do not believe Stanford will settle for the Mountain West in football, and I do not agree that it would be a good thing. 

I also would not characterize Stanford's appeal to a major conference as a "doormat".

The new era of college football realistically does not allow Stanford to compete for national championships, as might have been thinkable in 2010-2015. However, I do think it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team (not this year, but in the long run) with occasional breakout seasons.  And I think that's how it will end up.

Oh for sure, there's some recency bias. I was referring, roughly, to the years which covered the new portal and NIL environment. I think those market dynamics are emblematic of the last four years. As to whether it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team over the long run, well...in terms of winning versus losing seasons since 1979, Stanford is 19-24-1. Seems to be that below average is our average season. And I think if we want to turn around that long term trend, I think we need less challenging competition, particularly given our reluctance to enter the arms race.

As for the "doormat" comment...I was referencing all of the Pac-12 in toto, particularly apart from USC, UCLA, OU and UW. Last year, the Pac 12 ranked 4th among conferences, but was 6th in 2021 (and behind the MWC). If a conference is composed solely of Top 25 (or top 50) teams, then my point was that there will be more losses, given the nature of the competition. And given the PERCEIVED quality of those eight Pac-12 teams, it surprises me that the other conferences would not want to include teams that conference leadership/other coaches think are more likely to wind up with losing records.

College football conferences ranked, from Big Ten to MAC - Sports Illustrated

Ranking Every College Football Conference After the 2022 Season | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report

San Diego State (in my hometown) is a strong team in the MW in many sports, and is nationally strong in men's basketball etc. SDSU, for their strength in Mountain West conference, media market etc. has 1 NCAA championship in its entire athletics department history (Men's Volleyball in 1973). If Stanford goes to the MW, football might be more competitive, but it would be to the (brobdingnagian) detriment of the Olympic sports (end of "the streak", the Director's Cups etc.). Now, if Stanford doesn't end up in one of the P4 (or maybe even just Power 2) conferences, the streak and Director's Cups era might already be over. But Stanford will not compete for national championships (in any sport, at least in the long term) in the MW.

[d4cohn]

Thinking back to the timing of the conference football decisions, Stanford had, in the not terribly distant past, won 8+ games (averaging 9.6 wins) and went to bowl games for ten seasons in a row, and David Shaw was being heavily recruited by the NFL. It wasn't such a stretch to think they were worth more than they were.

Stanford has now averaged 3.5 wins for the last four seasons.  They have an FBS head coach, a flood of players who departed via the portal and long-term dwindling fan support.  I think potential success in the major conferences, B1G included, is a considerable stretch. I'm a firm believer that you put people -- children, students, employees, teams, organizations -- in a position where they can be most successful. I think Stanford -- and Cal -- are most likely to be successful in a lesser conference, one in which the vagaries of the NIL market and the transfer portal will be less prevalent; e.g., the MWC. Rebrand the MWC as the PAC-16, and it will lift the boats of all teams considered...and Stanford and Cal will once again have seasons when they will average 10 wins or so. Better travel, lesser opponents, better records. And the locations are either close (SJSU) or fun to visit (San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc.) Maybe Stanford will travel well, and maybe our opponents will travel well.

Just as an aside...it's odd to me that the SEC, B1G and ACC didn't want more of the PAC teams. Every conference needs doormats (or perceived doormats), and in the race to limit conference opponents to the most successful teams, the average number of wins will likely drop. The 8 win teams become 6 win teams, the 10 win teams become 8 win teams. What happens then? I'm recommending that Stanford move in the opposite direction. Just food for thought.

I think there is some recency bias in this post.

I do not believe Stanford will settle for the Mountain West in football, and I do not agree that it would be a good thing. 

I also would not characterize Stanford's appeal to a major conference as a "doormat".

The new era of college football realistically does not allow Stanford to compete for national championships, as might have been thinkable in 2010-2015. However, I do think it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team (not this year, but in the long run) with occasional breakout seasons.  And I think that's how it will end up.

Oh for sure, there's some recency bias. I was referring, roughly, to the years which covered the new portal and NIL environment. I think those market dynamics are emblematic of the last four years. As to whether it's reasonable to expect Stanford to be an above-average college football team over the long run, well...in terms of winning versus losing seasons since 1979, Stanford is 19-24-1. Seems to be that below average is our average season. And I think if we want to turn around that long term trend, I think we need less challenging competition, particularly given our reluctance to enter the arms race.

As for the "doormat" comment...I was referencing all of the Pac-12 in toto, particularly apart from USC, UCLA, OU and UW. Last year, the Pac 12 ranked 4th among conferences, but was 6th in 2021 (and behind the MWC). If a conference is composed solely of Top 25 (or top 50) teams, then my point was that there will be more losses, given the nature of the competition. And given the PERCEIVED quality of those eight Pac-12 teams, it surprises me that the other conferences would not want to include teams that conference leadership/other coaches think are more likely to wind up with losing records.

College football conferences ranked, from Big Ten to MAC - Sports Illustrated

Ranking Every College Football Conference After the 2022 Season | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report

San Diego State (in my hometown) is a strong team in the MW in many sports, and is nationally strong in men's basketball etc. SDSU, for their strength in Mountain West conference, media market etc. has 1 NCAA championship in its entire athletics department history (Men's Volleyball in 1973). If Stanford goes to the MW, football might be more competitive, but it would be to the (brobdingnagian) detriment of the Olympic sports (end of "the streak", the Director's Cups etc.). Now, if Stanford doesn't end up in one of the P4 (or maybe even just Power 2) conferences, the streak and Director's Cups era might already be over. But Stanford will not compete for national championships (in any sport, at least in the long term) in the MW.

[Softball Fan]

I agree d4cohn.  If Stanford were to join the MWC or all of the MWC teams were added to the PAC 4 outcasts, almost all Olympic sports would fairly quickly drop from national prominence.  I'll use the sport I'm most passionate about as an example; WVB.  The current Stanford WVB team playing many of the MWC teams would be like the varsity playing the freshmen team.  The Stanford players would become disinterested due to the lack of competition.  Many elite recruits would start exploring other opportunities in future years.

My first choice would be some Olympic sports join the ACC and the football team can go independent or somewhere to their liking.  My course of action would be to:

1.) Ask the coaches of all Stanford's Olympic sports teams if the ACC would be a good fit for their sport.  I would only want to involve the teams that would want to go to the ACC.  It would be the ideal fit for WVB for many reasons.  I would be willing to bet if you asked the WVB players if they want to play in the ACC with the travel implications or the MWC, every player on the roster would prefer the ACC and deal with the travel.

2.) A solution for some of Stanford's sports will require outside the box thinking by those at Stanford in charge.  I would first approach ND and get their support which I suspect they would be glad to do.  The chance for teams like ND, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, etc. to play nationally prominent Stanford WVB every season should be appealing to them.

3.) If having the football team in one conference and other sports in a different conference violates some NCAA rule, I would petition them to change the rule.  The emphasis being on creativity for a changing college sports landscape.

4.) Appeal to Stanford alums to donate to their sport of interest.  For example Jim Belardi has a daughter who currently plays on the WVB and beach volleyball teams.  He is the guy who made the Belardi pool at the Avery Aquatic Center happen.  I would not ask the ACC for any distribution to allow some Stanford sports to join their conference.

Yes, I know the possibility of this happening is between slim and none.  I would at least explore it to see if it goes anywhere.  The alternative is Stanford sports across the board gradually fading from the national scene which is probably where things will end up.

[Softball Fan]

I agree d4cohn.  If Stanford were to join the MWC or all of the MWC teams were added to the PAC 4 outcasts, almost all Olympic sports would fairly quickly drop from national prominence.  I'll use the sport I'm most passionate about as an example; WVB.  The current Stanford WVB team playing many of the MWC teams would be like the varsity playing the freshmen team.  The Stanford players would become disinterested due to the lack of competition.  Many elite recruits would start exploring other opportunities in future years.

My first choice would be some Olympic sports join the ACC and the football team can go independent or somewhere to their liking.  My course of action would be to:

1.) Ask the coaches of all Stanford's Olympic sports teams if the ACC would be a good fit for their sport.  I would only want to involve the teams that would want to go to the ACC.  It would be the ideal fit for WVB for many reasons.  I would be willing to bet if you asked the WVB players if they want to play in the ACC with the travel implications or the MWC, every player on the roster would prefer the ACC and deal with the travel.

2.) A solution for some of Stanford's sports will require outside the box thinking by those at Stanford in charge.  I would first approach ND and get their support which I suspect they would be glad to do.  The chance for teams like ND, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, etc. to play nationally prominent Stanford WVB every season should be appealing to them.

3.) If having the football team in one conference and other sports in a different conference violates some NCAA rule, I would petition them to change the rule.  The emphasis being on creativity for a changing college sports landscape.

4.) Appeal to Stanford alums to donate to their sport of interest.  For example Jim Belardi has a daughter who currently plays on the WVB and beach volleyball teams.  He is the guy who made the Belardi pool at the Avery Aquatic Center happen.  I would not ask the ACC for any distribution to allow some Stanford sports to join their conference.

Yes, I know the possibility of this happening is between slim and none.  I would at least explore it to see if it goes anywhere.  The alternative is Stanford sports across the board gradually fading from the national scene which is probably where things will end up.

[Goose]

FWIW, IF it doesn't cost them any money, I would bet most conferences would be glad to have Stanford's teams in their conference. Yes, Stanford might be a "hard out", but it would also validate said conference's legitimacy. WBB might be a problem. Too good for too long for some competitors to accept, but it is worth a try. The real question would be how much of a commitment Stanford would need to make to said conference. Nobody wants to be a "parking place until something better comes along". That, IMHO, is the main obstacle to joining a conference in everything but football.

[Goose]

FWIW, IF it doesn't cost them any money, I would bet most conferences would be glad to have Stanford's teams in their conference. Yes, Stanford might be a "hard out", but it would also validate said conference's legitimacy. WBB might be a problem. Too good for too long for some competitors to accept, but it is worth a try. The real question would be how much of a commitment Stanford would need to make to said conference. Nobody wants to be a "parking place until something better comes along". That, IMHO, is the main obstacle to joining a conference in everything but football.

[d4cohn]

I agree d4cohn.  If Stanford were to join the MWC or all of the MWC teams were added to the PAC 4 outcasts, almost all Olympic sports would fairly quickly drop from national prominence.  I'll use the sport I'm most passionate about as an example; WVB.  The current Stanford WVB team playing many of the MWC teams would be like the varsity playing the freshmen team.  The Stanford players would become disinterested due to the lack of competition.  Many elite recruits would start exploring other opportunities in future years.

My first choice would be some Olympic sports join the ACC and the football team can go independent or somewhere to their liking.  My course of action would be to:

1.) Ask the coaches of all Stanford's Olympic sports teams if the ACC would be a good fit for their sport.  I would only want to involve the teams that would want to go to the ACC.  It would be the ideal fit for WVB for many reasons.  I would be willing to bet if you asked the WVB players if they want to play in the ACC with the travel implications or the MWC, every player on the roster would prefer the ACC and deal with the travel.

2.) A solution for some of Stanford's sports will require outside the box thinking by those at Stanford in charge.  I would first approach ND and get their support which I suspect they would be glad to do.  The chance for teams like ND, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, etc. to play nationally prominent Stanford WVB every season should be appealing to them.

3.) If having the football team in one conference and other sports in a different conference violates some NCAA rule, I would petition them to change the rule.  The emphasis being on creativity for a changing college sports landscape.

4.) Appeal to Stanford alums to donate to their sport of interest.  For example Jim Belardi has a daughter who currently plays on the WVB and beach volleyball teams.  He is the guy who made the Belardi pool at the Avery Aquatic Center happen.  I would not ask the ACC for any distribution to allow some Stanford sports to join their conference.

Yes, I know the possibility of this happening is between slim and none.  I would at least explore it to see if it goes anywhere.  The alternative is Stanford sports across the board gradually fading from the national scene which is probably where things will end up.

Thanks PA. Sadly, I don't even know if it would be a gradual fade (I think our entire AD could decline like football declined from 2018 to 2019-2022). I think, depending on how the conference picture sorts out, there could be a lot of transfers and coaches leaving for other schools (which would cause some more players to transfer) in June. I agree recruits want to play and compete against the best, but I actually think the bigger reason Stanford's Olympic sports would decline in the MW is dollars and cents. I think the Big 10's media deal is 10 times (in terms of payout for a full share) the MW deal. While football may get a lot of the extra revenue, the media money also flows down to the Olympic sports too (and compounds year after year). If schools are able to pay coaches more in the Big 10, and the student-athletes can get better NIL deals elsewhere (and still get a good education at a Big 10 school), both coaches and athletes will more likely than not pick those schools. 

Stanford's pitch to prospective athletes in at least the Olympic sports is Stanford is the school if you want to get both an elite education and compete for national championships. If the second half of the equation is removed, then we are basically competing on the same plain as the Ivies (even if football and men's basketball and some of our other sports would be better than those at the schools in the Ivy League).

[d4cohn]

I agree d4cohn.  If Stanford were to join the MWC or all of the MWC teams were added to the PAC 4 outcasts, almost all Olympic sports would fairly quickly drop from national prominence.  I'll use the sport I'm most passionate about as an example; WVB.  The current Stanford WVB team playing many of the MWC teams would be like the varsity playing the freshmen team.  The Stanford players would become disinterested due to the lack of competition.  Many elite recruits would start exploring other opportunities in future years.

My first choice would be some Olympic sports join the ACC and the football team can go independent or somewhere to their liking.  My course of action would be to:

1.) Ask the coaches of all Stanford's Olympic sports teams if the ACC would be a good fit for their sport.  I would only want to involve the teams that would want to go to the ACC.  It would be the ideal fit for WVB for many reasons.  I would be willing to bet if you asked the WVB players if they want to play in the ACC with the travel implications or the MWC, every player on the roster would prefer the ACC and deal with the travel.

2.) A solution for some of Stanford's sports will require outside the box thinking by those at Stanford in charge.  I would first approach ND and get their support which I suspect they would be glad to do.  The chance for teams like ND, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, etc. to play nationally prominent Stanford WVB every season should be appealing to them.

3.) If having the football team in one conference and other sports in a different conference violates some NCAA rule, I would petition them to change the rule.  The emphasis being on creativity for a changing college sports landscape.

4.) Appeal to Stanford alums to donate to their sport of interest.  For example Jim Belardi has a daughter who currently plays on the WVB and beach volleyball teams.  He is the guy who made the Belardi pool at the Avery Aquatic Center happen.  I would not ask the ACC for any distribution to allow some Stanford sports to join their conference.

Yes, I know the possibility of this happening is between slim and none.  I would at least explore it to see if it goes anywhere.  The alternative is Stanford sports across the board gradually fading from the national scene which is probably where things will end up.

Thanks PA. Sadly, I don't even know if it would be a gradual fade (I think our entire AD could decline like football declined from 2018 to 2019-2022). I think, depending on how the conference picture sorts out, there could be a lot of transfers and coaches leaving for other schools (which would cause some more players to transfer) in June. I agree recruits want to play and compete against the best, but I actually think the bigger reason Stanford's Olympic sports would decline in the MW is dollars and cents. I think the Big 10's media deal is 10 times (in terms of payout for a full share) the MW deal. While football may get a lot of the extra revenue, the media money also flows down to the Olympic sports too (and compounds year after year). If schools are able to pay coaches more in the Big 10, and the student-athletes can get better NIL deals elsewhere (and still get a good education at a Big 10 school), both coaches and athletes will more likely than not pick those schools. 

Stanford's pitch to prospective athletes in at least the Olympic sports is Stanford is the school if you want to get both an elite education and compete for national championships. If the second half of the equation is removed, then we are basically competing on the same plain as the Ivies (even if football and men's basketball and some of our other sports would be better than those at the schools in the Ivy League).

[Jamesy]

I agree d4cohn.  If Stanford were to join the MWC or all of the MWC teams were added to the PAC 4 outcasts, almost all Olympic sports would fairly quickly drop from national prominence.  I'll use the sport I'm most passionate about as an example; WVB.  The current Stanford WVB team playing many of the MWC teams would be like the varsity playing the freshmen team.  The Stanford players would become disinterested due to the lack of competition.  Many elite recruits would start exploring other opportunities in future years.

My first choice would be some Olympic sports join the ACC and the football team can go independent or somewhere to their liking.  My course of action would be to:

1.) Ask the coaches of all Stanford's Olympic sports teams if the ACC would be a good fit for their sport.  I would only want to involve the teams that would want to go to the ACC.  It would be the ideal fit for WVB for many reasons.  I would be willing to bet if you asked the WVB players if they want to play in the ACC with the travel implications or the MWC, every player on the roster would prefer the ACC and deal with the travel.

2.) A solution for some of Stanford's sports will require outside the box thinking by those at Stanford in charge.  I would first approach ND and get their support which I suspect they would be glad to do.  The chance for teams like ND, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, etc. to play nationally prominent Stanford WVB every season should be appealing to them.

3.) If having the football team in one conference and other sports in a different conference violates some NCAA rule, I would petition them to change the rule.  The emphasis being on creativity for a changing college sports landscape.

4.) Appeal to Stanford alums to donate to their sport of interest.  For example Jim Belardi has a daughter who currently plays on the WVB and beach volleyball teams.  He is the guy who made the Belardi pool at the Avery Aquatic Center happen.  I would not ask the ACC for any distribution to allow some Stanford sports to join their conference.

Yes, I know the possibility of this happening is between slim and none.  I would at least explore it to see if it goes anywhere.  The alternative is Stanford sports across the board gradually fading from the national scene which is probably where things will end up.

Re point 3, Hawaii football is in MWC and everything else is in Big West so there is no rule against it.

[Jamesy]

I agree d4cohn.  If Stanford were to join the MWC or all of the MWC teams were added to the PAC 4 outcasts, almost all Olympic sports would fairly quickly drop from national prominence.  I'll use the sport I'm most passionate about as an example; WVB.  The current Stanford WVB team playing many of the MWC teams would be like the varsity playing the freshmen team.  The Stanford players would become disinterested due to the lack of competition.  Many elite recruits would start exploring other opportunities in future years.

My first choice would be some Olympic sports join the ACC and the football team can go independent or somewhere to their liking.  My course of action would be to:

1.) Ask the coaches of all Stanford's Olympic sports teams if the ACC would be a good fit for their sport.  I would only want to involve the teams that would want to go to the ACC.  It would be the ideal fit for WVB for many reasons.  I would be willing to bet if you asked the WVB players if they want to play in the ACC with the travel implications or the MWC, every player on the roster would prefer the ACC and deal with the travel.

2.) A solution for some of Stanford's sports will require outside the box thinking by those at Stanford in charge.  I would first approach ND and get their support which I suspect they would be glad to do.  The chance for teams like ND, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, etc. to play nationally prominent Stanford WVB every season should be appealing to them.

3.) If having the football team in one conference and other sports in a different conference violates some NCAA rule, I would petition them to change the rule.  The emphasis being on creativity for a changing college sports landscape.

4.) Appeal to Stanford alums to donate to their sport of interest.  For example Jim Belardi has a daughter who currently plays on the WVB and beach volleyball teams.  He is the guy who made the Belardi pool at the Avery Aquatic Center happen.  I would not ask the ACC for any distribution to allow some Stanford sports to join their conference.

Yes, I know the possibility of this happening is between slim and none.  I would at least explore it to see if it goes anywhere.  The alternative is Stanford sports across the board gradually fading from the national scene which is probably where things will end up.

Re point 3, Hawaii football is in MWC and everything else is in Big West so there is no rule against it.