[grendalor]

I think there may be a perception difference between scheduling an OOC game (even a series of them) with a school, on the one hand, and establishing an enduring, semi-permanent financial/athletic partnership with them (which is what a conference is), on the other.  It implies a level of approval by virtue of established affiliation that is significantly higher, I believe.  

I'm not saying that this issue is determinative of why a B12/Pac12 merger may not be in the cards.   At this point I don't think that a potential megamerger between the B12 and the Pac12 has enough "there" there, in terms of the teams that are remaining, for it to really work and/or be interesting to the main participants regardless of any issues like the religious/culture/values and or academic/AAU issues -- but I think it's in the mix for certain in the current environment.

Ditch Shaw, ditch Haase, ditch Muir, or blame Larry and/or USC and/or Texas.  It just doesn't matter.   The demos are all wrong.  Perhaps the best evidence of the problem emerged when Shaw was winning.  Remember when David Shaw took Stanford to the second Pac-12 CG and no one came to a Friday night game at Stanford because...(insert excuses here)?   Whatever excuse you use, it is exactly the type of thing a super conference wants to avoid.

Yeah.  The B1G already has Northwestern, which has similar attendance characteristics to Stanford -- large metro area, diverse population, small alum base, most of the large local population not interested in your athletics program unless tied to the school in another way.  Heck there are more fans and alums of other B1G schools in Chicagoland than of NU (my son just graduated from NU).  They know the drill when it comes to schools like this, and although Stanford brings things to the table that NU does not (higher academics, much more athletic breadth and quality), I doubt that most of the other schools in the B1G see the value of adding 1-2 more Northwestern type schools to the conference from a purely athletics/revenue perspective.

[grendalor]

I think there may be a perception difference between scheduling an OOC game (even a series of them) with a school, on the one hand, and establishing an enduring, semi-permanent financial/athletic partnership with them (which is what a conference is), on the other.  It implies a level of approval by virtue of established affiliation that is significantly higher, I believe.  

I'm not saying that this issue is determinative of why a B12/Pac12 merger may not be in the cards.   At this point I don't think that a potential megamerger between the B12 and the Pac12 has enough "there" there, in terms of the teams that are remaining, for it to really work and/or be interesting to the main participants regardless of any issues like the religious/culture/values and or academic/AAU issues -- but I think it's in the mix for certain in the current environment.

Ditch Shaw, ditch Haase, ditch Muir, or blame Larry and/or USC and/or Texas.  It just doesn't matter.   The demos are all wrong.  Perhaps the best evidence of the problem emerged when Shaw was winning.  Remember when David Shaw took Stanford to the second Pac-12 CG and no one came to a Friday night game at Stanford because...(insert excuses here)?   Whatever excuse you use, it is exactly the type of thing a super conference wants to avoid.

Yeah.  The B1G already has Northwestern, which has similar attendance characteristics to Stanford -- large metro area, diverse population, small alum base, most of the large local population not interested in your athletics program unless tied to the school in another way.  Heck there are more fans and alums of other B1G schools in Chicagoland than of NU (my son just graduated from NU).  They know the drill when it comes to schools like this, and although Stanford brings things to the table that NU does not (higher academics, much more athletic breadth and quality), I doubt that most of the other schools in the B1G see the value of adding 1-2 more Northwestern type schools to the conference from a purely athletics/revenue perspective.