[Mick]

- I do believe Stanford going to the Big Ten is leverage to get Notre Dame to some degree.
- Stanford isn't a package deal with Cal, and Stanford can always play Cal in sports out of conference.
- I think competing at the highest level of college sports is important to Stanford alums and boosters, else it wouldn't lead the NCAA in championships.
- Stanford would be a great get for the Big Ten in terms of having the #1 academic and athletic school in the country.

Stanford and Notre Dame, as a pairing, actually make sense to me. I don't think Cal and Stanford are equals any more. I remember when I was a kid, flipping through the Big Game program, Stanford and Cal had an even record across the history of the Big Game and even points scored were only separated by a few touchdowns.  Since 1961, Stanford is 41-20-1 against Cal and 10-2 in the last 12 years.  Separately, I don't think Cal is as attractive to the Big Ten as ND and Stanford, although I think all three would lift the "academic" portion of the Big Ten brand.  And as an aside, if the Big 10 becomes the "academic" conference, what is the SEC? Totally agree that Stanford is the most attractive athletic/academic brand, outside of football, and does carry the $45 mms. weight.

* Maybe not to the same degree as USCLA, but Stanford may not want to support Oregon State, Washington State, etc. 
- A watered down Pac or Big XII will have too many schools not academically on par with Stanford.

I've thought for many years that if you looked objectively at the academic rankings of the Pac-12 schools, some are great academically, some not so much.  Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA are all ranked between #6 and #27 in USNWR.  Then there's a drop to Washington (#59, which almost SCU's level at #55), then another drop to Oregon, Utah and Colorado, all at #99 (similar to Auburn and UC-Merced) and Arizona (#103) and Arizona State (#117) which are similar to Temple, Illinois and UC-Santa Cruz.  Then, there's a greater dropoff to Oregon State (#162/Hofstra, Kansas State) and Washington State (#179/Houston/Montclair/Rowan).

One comment on "going Ivy.'  That's doable when you've got several elite private schools relatively near you. Name the next one closest to Stanford that even has an athletics program, then the next closest two.

Solid point.  Outside of USCLA, it's Cal and CalTech that's even in the ballpark, academically speaking. Also, the Ivy league academic requirements are (to be candid) much more stringent for their student athletes on average than for Stanford student athletes. Consequently, the Ivy league athletes tend to be considerably worse athletically than those at Stanford.

So I agree...Stanford belongs with the Big 10, ultimately.

[Mick]

- I do believe Stanford going to the Big Ten is leverage to get Notre Dame to some degree.
- Stanford isn't a package deal with Cal, and Stanford can always play Cal in sports out of conference.
- I think competing at the highest level of college sports is important to Stanford alums and boosters, else it wouldn't lead the NCAA in championships.
- Stanford would be a great get for the Big Ten in terms of having the #1 academic and athletic school in the country.

Stanford and Notre Dame, as a pairing, actually make sense to me. I don't think Cal and Stanford are equals any more. I remember when I was a kid, flipping through the Big Game program, Stanford and Cal had an even record across the history of the Big Game and even points scored were only separated by a few touchdowns.  Since 1961, Stanford is 41-20-1 against Cal and 10-2 in the last 12 years.  Separately, I don't think Cal is as attractive to the Big Ten as ND and Stanford, although I think all three would lift the "academic" portion of the Big Ten brand.  And as an aside, if the Big 10 becomes the "academic" conference, what is the SEC? Totally agree that Stanford is the most attractive athletic/academic brand, outside of football, and does carry the $45 mms. weight.

* Maybe not to the same degree as USCLA, but Stanford may not want to support Oregon State, Washington State, etc. 
- A watered down Pac or Big XII will have too many schools not academically on par with Stanford.

I've thought for many years that if you looked objectively at the academic rankings of the Pac-12 schools, some are great academically, some not so much.  Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA are all ranked between #6 and #27 in USNWR.  Then there's a drop to Washington (#59, which almost SCU's level at #55), then another drop to Oregon, Utah and Colorado, all at #99 (similar to Auburn and UC-Merced) and Arizona (#103) and Arizona State (#117) which are similar to Temple, Illinois and UC-Santa Cruz.  Then, there's a greater dropoff to Oregon State (#162/Hofstra, Kansas State) and Washington State (#179/Houston/Montclair/Rowan).

One comment on "going Ivy.'  That's doable when you've got several elite private schools relatively near you. Name the next one closest to Stanford that even has an athletics program, then the next closest two.

Solid point.  Outside of USCLA, it's Cal and CalTech that's even in the ballpark, academically speaking. Also, the Ivy league academic requirements are (to be candid) much more stringent for their student athletes on average than for Stanford student athletes. Consequently, the Ivy league athletes tend to be considerably worse athletically than those at Stanford.

So I agree...Stanford belongs with the Big 10, ultimately.