[teejers1]

Interview with current P12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff. He takes a swipe or two at his predecessor. Talks about self-inflicted wounds related to the media rights deals. He says, "I have 30 months left on those contracts and I'm counting every hour. The Pac 12 fans have my commitment that we're going to fix that."

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...challenges

Love the idea of replacing game 9 with a PAC-12 vs Big 10 game.

My main concern here would be where that 9th game would come out of.  Assuming we don't abandon the current divisional alignment, it's almost certainly going to mean the end of the yearly series against the LA schools for Stanford. Because with only 3 interdivisional games I'm not sure we'd be able to continue using two to lock in the LA pair annually, leaving only one game to rotate through the rest of the South division.  

Much more likely would be an even rotation of the South teams, where we play one LA team, one AZ team, and one mountain team. 

And, personally, I would hate that. Our yearly matchup against UCLA is my most attended game in my time as a fan.  Both at the Farm and in Pasadena. I'd hate to give it up.

I think a non-divisional structure may be the choice of conference leadership.  Eight games on a rotating basis, including one protected game (v. rival), and no guarantee of annual games between the NorCal and the SoCal schools.

That would be my vote.  Look, playing SC and UCLA is good and traditional and all; but long-term, over time, it probably hurts Stanford's W/L record more than skipping one of them in favor of other conference teams would.  I know that has been less true in somewhat recent years, but still.  And despite my doom and gloom projections for Stanford football, if it survives, I want it to have best chance to thrive/succeed.

[teejers1]

Interview with current P12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff. He takes a swipe or two at his predecessor. Talks about self-inflicted wounds related to the media rights deals. He says, "I have 30 months left on those contracts and I'm counting every hour. The Pac 12 fans have my commitment that we're going to fix that."

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...challenges

Love the idea of replacing game 9 with a PAC-12 vs Big 10 game.

My main concern here would be where that 9th game would come out of.  Assuming we don't abandon the current divisional alignment, it's almost certainly going to mean the end of the yearly series against the LA schools for Stanford. Because with only 3 interdivisional games I'm not sure we'd be able to continue using two to lock in the LA pair annually, leaving only one game to rotate through the rest of the South division.  

Much more likely would be an even rotation of the South teams, where we play one LA team, one AZ team, and one mountain team. 

And, personally, I would hate that. Our yearly matchup against UCLA is my most attended game in my time as a fan.  Both at the Farm and in Pasadena. I'd hate to give it up.

I think a non-divisional structure may be the choice of conference leadership.  Eight games on a rotating basis, including one protected game (v. rival), and no guarantee of annual games between the NorCal and the SoCal schools.

That would be my vote.  Look, playing SC and UCLA is good and traditional and all; but long-term, over time, it probably hurts Stanford's W/L record more than skipping one of them in favor of other conference teams would.  I know that has been less true in somewhat recent years, but still.  And despite my doom and gloom projections for Stanford football, if it survives, I want it to have best chance to thrive/succeed.