[Mudhead]

I'm not sure if they pay attention to the "average fan" but I know that they paid attention to John Canzano's 4-part series on the Pac-12 operation. I reached out to both Muir and Tessier-Lavigne about this expose. I got a reply and follow-up exchange from Howard Wolff who manages alumni relations that was more than a form letter and talking points. It was clear that not only did Stanford take the expose seriously but that there were discussions with multiple AD's and Presidents at other schools about it.

My inference is that they weren't fully aware of the issues Canzano raised and that the bigger picture is not a good one. I have to believe that the more recent actions (loss of U-Verse, the PR firm, and floating the equity fiasco) only reinforce the problems with current leadership.

I find it hard to believe that Canzano “exposed” anything to Muir and Tessier-Lavigne.  It is more likely that they are getting blowback from a few hard-core sports fans.  Stanford’s interests are not necessarily going to align with the other members of the PAC-12, so fixes to increase revenue may actually not work to Stanford’s benefit overall.

I’m far from an expert or an “insider” if that means influencers.  I’ve had enough conversations, though, to be pretty sure that the Athletic Department at .stanford is very concerned with the direction and leadership of the PAC 12. I think this includes being concerned with Scott and I think Muir himself is not a  happy camper. Action is the prerogative of the Presidents, not of the ADs and probably should be.  I suspect they may be mollified by the image of the PAC 12 presented in the inane if not childish public service spots used to fill time slots not bought by paid advertising.  I worry that a WOK image is accepted as a substitute for success.  This is pure opinion and conjecture on my part.  I do not present it as fact.

[Mudhead]

I'm not sure if they pay attention to the "average fan" but I know that they paid attention to John Canzano's 4-part series on the Pac-12 operation. I reached out to both Muir and Tessier-Lavigne about this expose. I got a reply and follow-up exchange from Howard Wolff who manages alumni relations that was more than a form letter and talking points. It was clear that not only did Stanford take the expose seriously but that there were discussions with multiple AD's and Presidents at other schools about it.

My inference is that they weren't fully aware of the issues Canzano raised and that the bigger picture is not a good one. I have to believe that the more recent actions (loss of U-Verse, the PR firm, and floating the equity fiasco) only reinforce the problems with current leadership.

I find it hard to believe that Canzano “exposed” anything to Muir and Tessier-Lavigne.  It is more likely that they are getting blowback from a few hard-core sports fans.  Stanford’s interests are not necessarily going to align with the other members of the PAC-12, so fixes to increase revenue may actually not work to Stanford’s benefit overall.

I’m far from an expert or an “insider” if that means influencers.  I’ve had enough conversations, though, to be pretty sure that the Athletic Department at .stanford is very concerned with the direction and leadership of the PAC 12. I think this includes being concerned with Scott and I think Muir himself is not a  happy camper. Action is the prerogative of the Presidents, not of the ADs and probably should be.  I suspect they may be mollified by the image of the PAC 12 presented in the inane if not childish public service spots used to fill time slots not bought by paid advertising.  I worry that a WOK image is accepted as a substitute for success.  This is pure opinion and conjecture on my part.  I do not present it as fact.