[OutsiderFan]

I don't think its going to happen.  Florida State, Clemson, and North Carolina want the ACC to fail.  They aren't going to change their minds.  NC State will do whatever North Carolina tells them to do as they (naively) believe that they are tied at the hip.  So, screw them.  I hope the ACC survives for many, many years and none of those schools are able to get out of the current Grant of Rights agreement.

Yes they are going to change their minds. I'm not saying this because new reporting from ESPN - who finances the ACC - says it will happen this week, either. There is simply no way those schools are saying no to $70M more dollars annually when they have no other way to get any more money than with the teams soon to be voted on for expansion. SMU willing to go 5-7 years with no media payout. Cal and Stanford willing to take less than full shares. These schools are as desperate to find a Power 4 chair as ACC schools are desperate for more revenue. The incentives align too much for it not to happen.

[OutsiderFan]

I don't think its going to happen.  Florida State, Clemson, and North Carolina want the ACC to fail.  They aren't going to change their minds.  NC State will do whatever North Carolina tells them to do as they (naively) believe that they are tied at the hip.  So, screw them.  I hope the ACC survives for many, many years and none of those schools are able to get out of the current Grant of Rights agreement.

Yes they are going to change their minds. I'm not saying this because new reporting from ESPN - who finances the ACC - says it will happen this week, either. There is simply no way those schools are saying no to $70M more dollars annually when they have no other way to get any more money than with the teams soon to be voted on for expansion. SMU willing to go 5-7 years with no media payout. Cal and Stanford willing to take less than full shares. These schools are as desperate to find a Power 4 chair as ACC schools are desperate for more revenue. The incentives align too much for it not to happen.

[fullmetal]

The incentives align too much for it not to happen.

I agree.  Everyone wins except the student-athletes and fans.  Sigh.

[fullmetal]

The incentives align too much for it not to happen.

I agree.  Everyone wins except the student-athletes and fans.  Sigh.

[msqueri]

No, it's a win for the student-athletes and the fans too. Those who don't have their heads in the sand understand that you need a power conference affiliation for Stanford to sustain what you're interested in for the student-athletes and the fans. It wouldn't be very good for student-athletes or fans to have to shed a bunch of varsity sports, compete against far-below elite competitors, never be talked about in national conversations, and just generally circle the drain. If we're going to be the Home of Champions we need to play major sports.

[msqueri]

No, it's a win for the student-athletes and the fans too. Those who don't have their heads in the sand understand that you need a power conference affiliation for Stanford to sustain what you're interested in for the student-athletes and the fans. It wouldn't be very good for student-athletes or fans to have to shed a bunch of varsity sports, compete against far-below elite competitors, never be talked about in national conversations, and just generally circle the drain. If we're going to be the Home of Champions we need to play major sports.

[Goose]

I don't think its going to happen.  Florida State, Clemson, and North Carolina want the ACC to fail.  They aren't going to change their minds.  NC State will do whatever North Carolina tells them to do as they (naively) believe that they are tied at the hip.  So, screw them.  I hope the ACC survives for many, many years and none of those schools are able to get out of the current Grant of Rights agreement.

Yes they are going to change their minds. I'm not saying this because new reporting from ESPN - who finances the ACC - says it will happen this week, either. There is simply no way those schools are saying no to $70M more dollars annually when they have no other way to get any more money than with the teams soon to be voted on for expansion. SMU willing to go 5-7 years with no media payout. Cal and Stanford willing to take less than full shares. These schools are as desperate to find a Power 4 chair as ACC schools are desperate for more revenue. The incentives align too much for it not to happen.

We often say that in college football today it is all about the money. That is almost universally the case. In the ACC however. there may be other internal forces at work that will influence the decision. The division of the "spoils" is still an issue, and that may ultimately kill the deal. I think nobody knows, not even the people doing the deciding.

[Goose]

I don't think its going to happen.  Florida State, Clemson, and North Carolina want the ACC to fail.  They aren't going to change their minds.  NC State will do whatever North Carolina tells them to do as they (naively) believe that they are tied at the hip.  So, screw them.  I hope the ACC survives for many, many years and none of those schools are able to get out of the current Grant of Rights agreement.

Yes they are going to change their minds. I'm not saying this because new reporting from ESPN - who finances the ACC - says it will happen this week, either. There is simply no way those schools are saying no to $70M more dollars annually when they have no other way to get any more money than with the teams soon to be voted on for expansion. SMU willing to go 5-7 years with no media payout. Cal and Stanford willing to take less than full shares. These schools are as desperate to find a Power 4 chair as ACC schools are desperate for more revenue. The incentives align too much for it not to happen.

We often say that in college football today it is all about the money. That is almost universally the case. In the ACC however. there may be other internal forces at work that will influence the decision. The division of the "spoils" is still an issue, and that may ultimately kill the deal. I think nobody knows, not even the people doing the deciding.

[CowboyIndian]

No, it's a win for the student-athletes and the fans too.

Well, if you're starving and someone throws you a piece of rotten fruit, you'll survive but it's not exactly winning.

[CowboyIndian]

No, it's a win for the student-athletes and the fans too.

Well, if you're starving and someone throws you a piece of rotten fruit, you'll survive but it's not exactly winning.

[fullmetal]

No, it's a win for the student-athletes and the fans too. Those who don't have their heads in the sand understand that you need a power conference affiliation for Stanford to sustain what you're interested in for the student-athletes and the fans. It wouldn't be very good for student-athletes or fans to have to shed a bunch of varsity sports, compete against far-below elite competitors, never be talked about in national conversations, and just generally circle the drain. If we're going to be the Home of Champions we need to play major sports.

Muir was perfectly fine with shedding varsity sports a few years ago before realignment; it's his go-to tactic to shore up budgetary issues despite handing out nice pay bumps to a very large athletic department payroll.  Many of the varsity sports targeted are now nearly self-sufficient (or at least on a good path toward self-sufficiency) and shouldn't be a factor in the budget going forward.

It might be a win for football/basketball, but it's not a win for the Olympic sports that the ACC sponsors.  And I don't even know if I'd call it a win.  ACC membership would salvage the athletic department from certain oblivion at the cost of substantial impacts to student-athlete life/academics as well as athletic competitive opportunity.  It's a decent step back from the ledge.  But I can't pretend that football/basketball are all that matter.

[fullmetal]

No, it's a win for the student-athletes and the fans too. Those who don't have their heads in the sand understand that you need a power conference affiliation for Stanford to sustain what you're interested in for the student-athletes and the fans. It wouldn't be very good for student-athletes or fans to have to shed a bunch of varsity sports, compete against far-below elite competitors, never be talked about in national conversations, and just generally circle the drain. If we're going to be the Home of Champions we need to play major sports.

Muir was perfectly fine with shedding varsity sports a few years ago before realignment; it's his go-to tactic to shore up budgetary issues despite handing out nice pay bumps to a very large athletic department payroll.  Many of the varsity sports targeted are now nearly self-sufficient (or at least on a good path toward self-sufficiency) and shouldn't be a factor in the budget going forward.

It might be a win for football/basketball, but it's not a win for the Olympic sports that the ACC sponsors.  And I don't even know if I'd call it a win.  ACC membership would salvage the athletic department from certain oblivion at the cost of substantial impacts to student-athlete life/academics as well as athletic competitive opportunity.  It's a decent step back from the ledge.  But I can't pretend that football/basketball are all that matter.

[Mick]

I don't think its going to happen.  Florida State, Clemson, and North Carolina want the ACC to fail.  They aren't going to change their minds.  NC State will do whatever North Carolina tells them to do as they (naively) believe that they are tied at the hip.  So, screw them.  I hope the ACC survives for many, many years and none of those schools are able to get out of the current Grant of Rights agreement.

Florida State and Clemson, I kinda/sorta understand where they're coming from (though I don't agree with it). They're basically in USC's boat. They have an overly inflated opinion of themselves, with their preseason #8 and #9 ranking. They're the top dogs of the conference...it would be interesting to see them in the SEC, as it will be interesting to see USC and UCLA in the B1G, because I think USC and UCLA will regress to the mean, once they face stiffer competition with more difficult travel requirements. I see a long line of 5-7 seasons for UCLA and 7-5 seasons for USC.

If part of USC/UCLA's calculus is the same as FSU/Clemson's...that they can leave a lesser conference in favor of a similarly exalted position at a more prominent conference...well, I think that's a miscalculation. I think it's going to be much more difficult to do that, particularly over the long haul. If you're the LEADER in a big conference, the top dog, that brings a certain cachet. If you're USC/UCLA, and now you have to compete directly with Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Michigan State, Nebraska, Wisconsin...what happens when you go 8-5 or 7-6 and the shine starts to wear off?  Same with Florida State and Clemson. If they stop competing with Duke and start competing with 'Bama, Georgia, LSU, Tennessee, etc., what happens when they start to slip?

Which brings me to North Carolina and NC State. As I'd said, I understand why Clemson and FSU are deluding themselves. What I DON'T understand is why #21 North Carolina wants to give up a chance to be the putative leader of ACC football. They could go from #3 to #1 in the conference if they lose those two opponents. Their career ACC record is .513, 255-242-5. If I were them, I'd be happy to see FSU and Clemson go NC State hasn't finished first in the conference since 1979, and their career ACC record is 53.2% (420-369). Why the rush to get their tails kicked in the SEC?

[Mick]

I don't think its going to happen.  Florida State, Clemson, and North Carolina want the ACC to fail.  They aren't going to change their minds.  NC State will do whatever North Carolina tells them to do as they (naively) believe that they are tied at the hip.  So, screw them.  I hope the ACC survives for many, many years and none of those schools are able to get out of the current Grant of Rights agreement.

Florida State and Clemson, I kinda/sorta understand where they're coming from (though I don't agree with it). They're basically in USC's boat. They have an overly inflated opinion of themselves, with their preseason #8 and #9 ranking. They're the top dogs of the conference...it would be interesting to see them in the SEC, as it will be interesting to see USC and UCLA in the B1G, because I think USC and UCLA will regress to the mean, once they face stiffer competition with more difficult travel requirements. I see a long line of 5-7 seasons for UCLA and 7-5 seasons for USC.

If part of USC/UCLA's calculus is the same as FSU/Clemson's...that they can leave a lesser conference in favor of a similarly exalted position at a more prominent conference...well, I think that's a miscalculation. I think it's going to be much more difficult to do that, particularly over the long haul. If you're the LEADER in a big conference, the top dog, that brings a certain cachet. If you're USC/UCLA, and now you have to compete directly with Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Michigan State, Nebraska, Wisconsin...what happens when you go 8-5 or 7-6 and the shine starts to wear off?  Same with Florida State and Clemson. If they stop competing with Duke and start competing with 'Bama, Georgia, LSU, Tennessee, etc., what happens when they start to slip?

Which brings me to North Carolina and NC State. As I'd said, I understand why Clemson and FSU are deluding themselves. What I DON'T understand is why #21 North Carolina wants to give up a chance to be the putative leader of ACC football. They could go from #3 to #1 in the conference if they lose those two opponents. Their career ACC record is .513, 255-242-5. If I were them, I'd be happy to see FSU and Clemson go NC State hasn't finished first in the conference since 1979, and their career ACC record is 53.2% (420-369). Why the rush to get their tails kicked in the SEC?

[msqueri]

No, it's a win for the student-athletes and the fans too. Those who don't have their heads in the sand understand that you need a power conference affiliation for Stanford to sustain what you're interested in for the student-athletes and the fans. It wouldn't be very good for student-athletes or fans to have to shed a bunch of varsity sports, compete against far-below elite competitors, never be talked about in national conversations, and just generally circle the drain. If we're going to be the Home of Champions we need to play major sports.

Muir was perfectly fine with shedding varsity sports a few years ago before realignment; it's his go-to tactic to shore up budgetary issues despite handing out nice pay bumps to a very large athletic department payroll.  Many of the varsity sports targeted are now nearly self-sufficient (or at least on a good path toward self-sufficiency) and shouldn't be a factor in the budget going forward.

It might be a win for football/basketball, but it's not a win for the Olympic sports that the ACC sponsors.  And I don't even know if I'd call it a win.  ACC membership would salvage the athletic department from certain oblivion at the cost of substantial impacts to student-athlete life/academics as well as athletic competitive opportunity.  It's a decent step back from the ledge.  But I can't pretend that football/basketball are all that matter.

What's your alternative for the Olympic sports (many of which I assume will be in the MPSF regardless, by the way)? Do the minor conferences remaining on the West Coast provide "athletic competitive opportunity?"

[msqueri]

No, it's a win for the student-athletes and the fans too. Those who don't have their heads in the sand understand that you need a power conference affiliation for Stanford to sustain what you're interested in for the student-athletes and the fans. It wouldn't be very good for student-athletes or fans to have to shed a bunch of varsity sports, compete against far-below elite competitors, never be talked about in national conversations, and just generally circle the drain. If we're going to be the Home of Champions we need to play major sports.

Muir was perfectly fine with shedding varsity sports a few years ago before realignment; it's his go-to tactic to shore up budgetary issues despite handing out nice pay bumps to a very large athletic department payroll.  Many of the varsity sports targeted are now nearly self-sufficient (or at least on a good path toward self-sufficiency) and shouldn't be a factor in the budget going forward.

It might be a win for football/basketball, but it's not a win for the Olympic sports that the ACC sponsors.  And I don't even know if I'd call it a win.  ACC membership would salvage the athletic department from certain oblivion at the cost of substantial impacts to student-athlete life/academics as well as athletic competitive opportunity.  It's a decent step back from the ledge.  But I can't pretend that football/basketball are all that matter.

What's your alternative for the Olympic sports (many of which I assume will be in the MPSF regardless, by the way)? Do the minor conferences remaining on the West Coast provide "athletic competitive opportunity?"

[Softball Fan]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...dd-schools

"Early Monday morning, ACC officials were working on gathering the league's presidents and chancellors on a call to further discuss and potentially vote on the issue."

"After a weekend of conversations, a source told ESPN that the details of the potential additions are "only in pencil," but it's trending in the direction of happening."

Might be a another case of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown' kick but on the surface sounds a little positive.

---

https://www.si.com/college/georgiatech/f...rd-and-smu

Brett McMurphy, the college football insider for the Action Network, added that one reason that the ACC is considering all three schools is that ESPN's media rights deal with the ACC allows ESPN to renegotiate if the conference drops below 15 members and that with the potential departures of Florida State, Clemson, and possibly others, the ACC is considering power five schools now as opposed to group of five schools later to maintain required membership numbers.

[Softball Fan]

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...dd-schools

"Early Monday morning, ACC officials were working on gathering the league's presidents and chancellors on a call to further discuss and potentially vote on the issue."

"After a weekend of conversations, a source told ESPN that the details of the potential additions are "only in pencil," but it's trending in the direction of happening."

Might be a another case of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown' kick but on the surface sounds a little positive.

---

https://www.si.com/college/georgiatech/f...rd-and-smu

Brett McMurphy, the college football insider for the Action Network, added that one reason that the ACC is considering all three schools is that ESPN's media rights deal with the ACC allows ESPN to renegotiate if the conference drops below 15 members and that with the potential departures of Florida State, Clemson, and possibly others, the ACC is considering power five schools now as opposed to group of five schools later to maintain required membership numbers.

[Lorcan]

We'll know Stanford's fate tonight, hopefully. ACC Presidents have scheduled a call to discuss and potentially vote on the fate of Cal, Stanford, and SMU additions.

[Lorcan]

We'll know Stanford's fate tonight, hopefully. ACC Presidents have scheduled a call to discuss and potentially vote on the fate of Cal, Stanford, and SMU additions.

[MV72018]

We'll know Stanford's fate tonight, hopefully. ACC Presidents have scheduled a call to discuss and potentially vote on the fate of Cal, Stanford, and SMU additions.

From where I sit, beyond the arrogant PAC-12's leaders having royally messed up the media rights situation, the fact that we are waiting to know "Stanford's fate," is due in no small measure to the fact that over the past five years Muir and top SU administrators have been pathetically passive and permissive in allowing Stanford football under Shaw to deteriorate into low-level mediocrity that we find ourselves sitting in the waiting room hoping for a digestable crumb to fall off the ACC table.

[MV72018]

We'll know Stanford's fate tonight, hopefully. ACC Presidents have scheduled a call to discuss and potentially vote on the fate of Cal, Stanford, and SMU additions.

From where I sit, beyond the arrogant PAC-12's leaders having royally messed up the media rights situation, the fact that we are waiting to know "Stanford's fate," is due in no small measure to the fact that over the past five years Muir and top SU administrators have been pathetically passive and permissive in allowing Stanford football under Shaw to deteriorate into low-level mediocrity that we find ourselves sitting in the waiting room hoping for a digestable crumb to fall off the ACC table.

[msqueri]

We'll know Stanford's fate tonight, hopefully. ACC Presidents have scheduled a call to discuss and potentially vote on the fate of Cal, Stanford, and SMU additions.

From where I sit, beyond the arrogant PAC-12's leaders having royally messed up the media rights situation, the fact that we are waiting to know "Stanford's fate," is due in no small measure to the fact that over the past five years Muir and top SU administrators have been pathetically passive and permissive in allowing Stanford football under Shaw to deteriorate into low-level mediocrity that we find ourselves sitting in the waiting room hoping for a digestable crumb to fall off the ACC table.

I of course agree with all of this. But I think there's more to this than just Shaw failed and wasn't held accountable to not fail or be replaced sooner. Stanford football has imploded numerous times before, in 1962-1963, 1983-1984, 2006-2007, and now in 2022-2023. It's essentially a once a generation thing. That itself is not that notable. I bet a lot of power programs would have an incidence of implosion more or less that regularly. Sometimes bad coaches get hired or coaches get stale or bad luck happens or some combination of things. The main problem Stanford has right now is that the latest incidence of our implosion had such spectacularly bad timing. But looking holistically at the whole sweep of the program, the more fundamental issue is what level of program we're committed to having. All programs will have relative ups and relative downs, but the height of the peaks and the depth of the valleys will differ. I don't think Stanford has shown a commitment that would give a dispassionate outside observer confidence that it will reliably be on the highest end of the peaks or valleys. We've shown a commitment level that would make somebody think we're a solid power program, maybe or maybe not sneaking in to the top 30 all things considered. That's a very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker. Ultimately, when we diagnose the causes of our predicament, yes, it's Shaw's failure, but it's also how we act in response to the failure, which is like a mediocre power program on a budget. I don't think we can be surprised when conference and media power brokers treat us like a mediocre power program on a budget.

[msqueri]

We'll know Stanford's fate tonight, hopefully. ACC Presidents have scheduled a call to discuss and potentially vote on the fate of Cal, Stanford, and SMU additions.

From where I sit, beyond the arrogant PAC-12's leaders having royally messed up the media rights situation, the fact that we are waiting to know "Stanford's fate," is due in no small measure to the fact that over the past five years Muir and top SU administrators have been pathetically passive and permissive in allowing Stanford football under Shaw to deteriorate into low-level mediocrity that we find ourselves sitting in the waiting room hoping for a digestable crumb to fall off the ACC table.

I of course agree with all of this. But I think there's more to this than just Shaw failed and wasn't held accountable to not fail or be replaced sooner. Stanford football has imploded numerous times before, in 1962-1963, 1983-1984, 2006-2007, and now in 2022-2023. It's essentially a once a generation thing. That itself is not that notable. I bet a lot of power programs would have an incidence of implosion more or less that regularly. Sometimes bad coaches get hired or coaches get stale or bad luck happens or some combination of things. The main problem Stanford has right now is that the latest incidence of our implosion had such spectacularly bad timing. But looking holistically at the whole sweep of the program, the more fundamental issue is what level of program we're committed to having. All programs will have relative ups and relative downs, but the height of the peaks and the depth of the valleys will differ. I don't think Stanford has shown a commitment that would give a dispassionate outside observer confidence that it will reliably be on the highest end of the peaks or valleys. We've shown a commitment level that would make somebody think we're a solid power program, maybe or maybe not sneaking in to the top 30 all things considered. That's a very respectable program but it's not a rainmaker. Ultimately, when we diagnose the causes of our predicament, yes, it's Shaw's failure, but it's also how we act in response to the failure, which is like a mediocre power program on a budget. I don't think we can be surprised when conference and media power brokers treat us like a mediocre power program on a budget.

[BobK]

That would be 1958-62 the 5 years of Jack Curtice. 1963 saw John Ralston ‘s first year Curtice 5 years 14-36

[BobK]

That would be 1958-62 the 5 years of Jack Curtice. 1963 saw John Ralston ‘s first year Curtice 5 years 14-36

[msqueri]

That would be 1958-62 the 5 years of Jack Curtice.  1963 saw John Ralston ‘s first year    Curtice 5 years 14-36

I know, but if we're comparing to where we are now 1963 is the right year for comparison. The beginning of the new coach is often still smoldering crater time. Ralston's first year was 3-7. If we're comparing to where we are now the beginning of the Ralston, Elway, Harris, and Harbaugh are the right comparisons.

[msqueri]

That would be 1958-62 the 5 years of Jack Curtice.  1963 saw John Ralston ‘s first year    Curtice 5 years 14-36

I know, but if we're comparing to where we are now 1963 is the right year for comparison. The beginning of the new coach is often still smoldering crater time. Ralston's first year was 3-7. If we're comparing to where we are now the beginning of the Ralston, Elway, Harris, and Harbaugh are the right comparisons.

[ColoradoTree]

Just from an exposure standpoint, can I just say that I would be super excited to have our Olympic sports on the ACC Network/ESPN? The sheer number of Stanford baseball games that I would now get to watch that I wouldn't otherwise? More tennis and soccer. More women's basketball, softball, and volleyball. Heck, more men's basketball games, as I'm told we continue to sponsor that sport, too.

There are lots of pieces to this, to be sure. But if this happens, I'm going to get to watch far more Stanford sporting events on TV than I could in the P12 Network era. And I'm excited about that.

[ColoradoTree]

Just from an exposure standpoint, can I just say that I would be super excited to have our Olympic sports on the ACC Network/ESPN? The sheer number of Stanford baseball games that I would now get to watch that I wouldn't otherwise? More tennis and soccer. More women's basketball, softball, and volleyball. Heck, more men's basketball games, as I'm told we continue to sponsor that sport, too.

There are lots of pieces to this, to be sure. But if this happens, I'm going to get to watch far more Stanford sporting events on TV than I could in the P12 Network era. And I'm excited about that.

[Farm93]

Stanford is a small private school that has relatively few US citizens passionate about its athletics, particularly football.
Let's ignore football, for just a moment.   One can see Stanford's attendance and eyeball challenges in other sports, even the most successful sports.

Women's basketball has been amazing for decades, and yet several schools put more fans in the stands.
Women's volleyball is the best program in the country that sometimes gets 2,000 people to games.  A number of programs like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State routinely pack bigger venues some capable of holding 12K-15K+ fans.
Men's baseball has been one of the best in the West, but Sunken Diamond is pretty small compared to venues in the SEC.

We can pull back to look at the Bay Area as a region.   SJSU rarely draws as well as several HS football teams in Texas or Florida.   Bay Area HS football teams are not exactly must see action even for citizens of their towns.

Much like a recruit should not pick a program based solely on a particular assistant coach, a conference is not going to make a 10+ year deal to add a partner based on a 2 or 3 year W/L record in one sport.

Stanford has a lot of financial resources and an exceptional climate for athletic training.
But this expansion game is about butts in the seats creating an electric stadium environment to draw eyeballs to the screen.   

I love Stanford football but just 10 minutes into my first game back in 1989 I understood that Stanford football fans are not really in the running for most dynamic or exciting crowd.   If it is raining, colder than 60 degrees, warmer than 85 degrees, or too early or too late the environment only gets less compelling even if the team is a top 25 team.

This current game of conference musical chairs is about securing programs, really football teams, that look compelling on TV whether 3-5 or 7-1.  Stanford football is not a top belle of this ball.   It isn't the belle in 2023, it wouldn't have been in 2018 or 2008 or 2003.  

The real bummer IMHO is that the ACC is not an ideal conference for Stanford to improve its stadium environment reputation.   The BigTen programs would have easily filled our stadium and travelled with bands that would have filled the house with noise.   However, my impression is that the ACC teams, even Clemson and FSU, don't really travel well enough to fill our stands and are unlikely to pay for their bands to travel.

The BigTen was a luxury yacht cruising by our sinking ship.   The ACC is more like a small row boat.    It is better than the sinking ship (a.k.a. Pac-??) in these stormy days, but not a lot better.

[Farm93]

Stanford is a small private school that has relatively few US citizens passionate about its athletics, particularly football.
Let's ignore football, for just a moment.   One can see Stanford's attendance and eyeball challenges in other sports, even the most successful sports.

Women's basketball has been amazing for decades, and yet several schools put more fans in the stands.
Women's volleyball is the best program in the country that sometimes gets 2,000 people to games.  A number of programs like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State routinely pack bigger venues some capable of holding 12K-15K+ fans.
Men's baseball has been one of the best in the West, but Sunken Diamond is pretty small compared to venues in the SEC.

We can pull back to look at the Bay Area as a region.   SJSU rarely draws as well as several HS football teams in Texas or Florida.   Bay Area HS football teams are not exactly must see action even for citizens of their towns.

Much like a recruit should not pick a program based solely on a particular assistant coach, a conference is not going to make a 10+ year deal to add a partner based on a 2 or 3 year W/L record in one sport.

Stanford has a lot of financial resources and an exceptional climate for athletic training.
But this expansion game is about butts in the seats creating an electric stadium environment to draw eyeballs to the screen.   

I love Stanford football but just 10 minutes into my first game back in 1989 I understood that Stanford football fans are not really in the running for most dynamic or exciting crowd.   If it is raining, colder than 60 degrees, warmer than 85 degrees, or too early or too late the environment only gets less compelling even if the team is a top 25 team.

This current game of conference musical chairs is about securing programs, really football teams, that look compelling on TV whether 3-5 or 7-1.  Stanford football is not a top belle of this ball.   It isn't the belle in 2023, it wouldn't have been in 2018 or 2008 or 2003.  

The real bummer IMHO is that the ACC is not an ideal conference for Stanford to improve its stadium environment reputation.   The BigTen programs would have easily filled our stadium and travelled with bands that would have filled the house with noise.   However, my impression is that the ACC teams, even Clemson and FSU, don't really travel well enough to fill our stands and are unlikely to pay for their bands to travel.

The BigTen was a luxury yacht cruising by our sinking ship.   The ACC is more like a small row boat.    It is better than the sinking ship (a.k.a. Pac-??) in these stormy days, but not a lot better.

[SkiBum80]

... but it's not a win for the Olympic sports that the ACC sponsors.  

When we talk about it being a win or loss, it depends on what being compared to.
If compared to the PAC-12 that lives on in our minds only? then yes, of course not a win.
But given the implosion of the PAC-12 then yes joining the ACC would be a win for our Olympic sports.
This compared to joining the Big-12 or MWC or AAC, or going independent, or cobbling together a remnant of west coast misfits and overlooks that no one in media would pay any attention let alone media fees, and very few top recruits would be attracted to attend.

[SkiBum80]

... but it's not a win for the Olympic sports that the ACC sponsors.  

When we talk about it being a win or loss, it depends on what being compared to.
If compared to the PAC-12 that lives on in our minds only? then yes, of course not a win.
But given the implosion of the PAC-12 then yes joining the ACC would be a win for our Olympic sports.
This compared to joining the Big-12 or MWC or AAC, or going independent, or cobbling together a remnant of west coast misfits and overlooks that no one in media would pay any attention let alone media fees, and very few top recruits would be attracted to attend.

[BobK]

Stanford WVB drew over 4,000 5 times last year. Twice had 1800 the only games under 2,000. No need to put down WVB

[BobK]

Stanford WVB drew over 4,000 5 times last year. Twice had 1800 the only games under 2,000. No need to put down WVB

[Leftcoast]

Culture wars rears it's head.  It's inevitable and it happened!  I think the new over-under for any/every topic to get the inevitable culture war post is now <15.  On a sports board. We should track it.

The culture needs to be fixed, which requires the mature adults on campus to look beyond placation of overly-sensitive, infantile students and to again take seriously their roles as teachers and mentors of future adults who need to be resilient and stop taking their blessed lives for granted.

[Leftcoast]

Culture wars rears it's head.  It's inevitable and it happened!  I think the new over-under for any/every topic to get the inevitable culture war post is now <15.  On a sports board. We should track it.

The culture needs to be fixed, which requires the mature adults on campus to look beyond placation of overly-sensitive, infantile students and to again take seriously their roles as teachers and mentors of future adults who need to be resilient and stop taking their blessed lives for granted.

[SkiBum80]

Stanford is a small private school that has relatively few US citizens passionate about its athletics, particularly football.
Let's ignore football, for just a moment.   One can see Stanford's attendance and eyeball challenges in other sports, even the most successful sports.

Women's basketball has been amazing for decades, and yet several schools put more fans in the stands.
Women's volleyball is the best program in the country that sometimes gets 2,000 people to games.  A number of programs like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State routinely pack bigger venues some capable of holding 12K-15K+ fans.
Men's baseball has been one of the best in the West, but Sunken Diamond is pretty small compared to venues in the SEC.

We can pull back to look at the Bay Area as a region.   SJSU rarely draws as well as several HS football teams in Texas or Florida.   Bay Area HS football teams are not exactly must see action even for citizens of their towns.

Much like a recruit should not pick a program based solely on a particular assistant coach, a conference is not going to make a 10+ year deal to add a partner based on a 2 or 3 year W/L record in one sport.

Stanford has a lot of financial resources and an exceptional climate for athletic training.
But this expansion game is about butts in the seats creating an electric stadium environment to draw eyeballs to the screen.   

I love Stanford football but just 10 minutes into my first game back in 1989 I understood that Stanford football fans are not really in the running for most dynamic or exciting crowd.   If it is raining, colder than 60 degrees, warmer than 85 degrees, or too early or too late the environment only gets less compelling even if the team is a top 25 team.

This current game of conference musical chairs is about securing programs, really football teams, that look compelling on TV whether 3-5 or 7-1.  Stanford football is not a top belle of this ball.   It isn't the belle in 2023, it wouldn't have been in 2018 or 2008 or 2003.  

The real bummer IMHO is that the ACC is not an ideal conference for Stanford to improve its stadium environment reputation.   The BigTen programs would have easily filled our stadium and travelled with bands that would have filled the house with noise.   However, my impression is that the ACC teams, even Clemson and FSU, don't really travel well enough to fill our stands and are unlikely to pay for their bands to travel.

The BigTen was a luxury yacht cruising by our sinking ship.   The ACC is more like a small row boat.    It is better than the sinking ship (a.k.a. Pac-??) in these stormy days, but not a lot better.

If we could wave a magical wand that had great conference realignment powers, but just short of being able to reconstitute the mortally wounded PAC-12, then yes, wave it to put us and CAL into a 6 team west coast division of the B1G. Throw the 2 northwest little sisters in there too to bump up to 8 teams, that's fine. But unless Harry Potter loan us such wand, then it seems joining ACC by far our best remaining option. There does exist the option of trying to do something semi-temporary now and trying for the B1G later. But every time I think of that, it seems like, to use your analogy, we'd be in the small row boat trying to reach port but on the wrong side of the open-ocean-going bay of Fundy tide.

[SkiBum80]

Stanford is a small private school that has relatively few US citizens passionate about its athletics, particularly football.
Let's ignore football, for just a moment.   One can see Stanford's attendance and eyeball challenges in other sports, even the most successful sports.

Women's basketball has been amazing for decades, and yet several schools put more fans in the stands.
Women's volleyball is the best program in the country that sometimes gets 2,000 people to games.  A number of programs like Nebraska, Wisconsin, Penn State routinely pack bigger venues some capable of holding 12K-15K+ fans.
Men's baseball has been one of the best in the West, but Sunken Diamond is pretty small compared to venues in the SEC.

We can pull back to look at the Bay Area as a region.   SJSU rarely draws as well as several HS football teams in Texas or Florida.   Bay Area HS football teams are not exactly must see action even for citizens of their towns.

Much like a recruit should not pick a program based solely on a particular assistant coach, a conference is not going to make a 10+ year deal to add a partner based on a 2 or 3 year W/L record in one sport.

Stanford has a lot of financial resources and an exceptional climate for athletic training.
But this expansion game is about butts in the seats creating an electric stadium environment to draw eyeballs to the screen.   

I love Stanford football but just 10 minutes into my first game back in 1989 I understood that Stanford football fans are not really in the running for most dynamic or exciting crowd.   If it is raining, colder than 60 degrees, warmer than 85 degrees, or too early or too late the environment only gets less compelling even if the team is a top 25 team.

This current game of conference musical chairs is about securing programs, really football teams, that look compelling on TV whether 3-5 or 7-1.  Stanford football is not a top belle of this ball.   It isn't the belle in 2023, it wouldn't have been in 2018 or 2008 or 2003.  

The real bummer IMHO is that the ACC is not an ideal conference for Stanford to improve its stadium environment reputation.   The BigTen programs would have easily filled our stadium and travelled with bands that would have filled the house with noise.   However, my impression is that the ACC teams, even Clemson and FSU, don't really travel well enough to fill our stands and are unlikely to pay for their bands to travel.

The BigTen was a luxury yacht cruising by our sinking ship.   The ACC is more like a small row boat.    It is better than the sinking ship (a.k.a. Pac-??) in these stormy days, but not a lot better.

If we could wave a magical wand that had great conference realignment powers, but just short of being able to reconstitute the mortally wounded PAC-12, then yes, wave it to put us and CAL into a 6 team west coast division of the B1G. Throw the 2 northwest little sisters in there too to bump up to 8 teams, that's fine. But unless Harry Potter loan us such wand, then it seems joining ACC by far our best remaining option. There does exist the option of trying to do something semi-temporary now and trying for the B1G later. But every time I think of that, it seems like, to use your analogy, we'd be in the small row boat trying to reach port but on the wrong side of the open-ocean-going bay of Fundy tide.