[M T]

You do know that your registration date is in your profile, “long time listener”.  I suppose you could have been coming here all these years without registering, but then that raises the question that you bothered to register just to say you are out?

BC

C'mon, give him/her a break.  Haven't you ever just monitored something forever until some issue makes you stand up and speak out?  To speak up here, you have to register, but you can read without registering.

While I disagree with his thought, AFAIC, it's ok for him to say it.  Furthermore, this board isn't about the PAC, it is about Stanford.  We talk about water polo when it isn''t a PAC-n sport.

Let's consider the issue differently.  Originally, why were athletic conferences developed?  I believe it likely was to develop consistent rules/officiating/conditions among schools that competed against each other.  It also allowed for a somewhat equal schedule among the members and a meaningful way to determine a champion.

Why aren't there different conferences for each sport?  When appropriate there are.   Besides the PAC-12, Stanford is in the MPSF (M&W water polo, artistic swimming), America East (FH), CSA (W Squash - all matches were Philly or further east), PCCSC (Sailing).

The conferences exist for their member schools.  Moreover, I believe the conference only exists at the pleasure of those members.

One might think that UCLA & USC felt about the PAC-12 leadership like various posters here and so left the conference.   What bothers me is that they seemingly did so without much notice or discussion with the other members of the conference.  At least publicly, there was no known prior discussion of what about the rest of the PAC-12.  Would a merger have been better, or a split and multiple mergers?

USC could be seen as wanting to avoid its past scandals and such.  I can not believe that the NCAA hasn't put a multi-year, multi(all)-sport ban on USC for the recent corruption across the athletic department.  I think the only two waiting for sentencing are the water polo coach and the pimp that lead everyone down the crooked path.

UCLA, especially as part of the UC system, is harder to understand why their departure was so sudden & disruptive.

Rather than boycotting the PAC-12, would it be better to try to have a boycott of all remaining USC & UCLA  PAC-12 games in every sport?

[M T]

You do know that your registration date is in your profile, “long time listener”.  I suppose you could have been coming here all these years without registering, but then that raises the question that you bothered to register just to say you are out?

BC

C'mon, give him/her a break.  Haven't you ever just monitored something forever until some issue makes you stand up and speak out?  To speak up here, you have to register, but you can read without registering.

While I disagree with his thought, AFAIC, it's ok for him to say it.  Furthermore, this board isn't about the PAC, it is about Stanford.  We talk about water polo when it isn''t a PAC-n sport.

Let's consider the issue differently.  Originally, why were athletic conferences developed?  I believe it likely was to develop consistent rules/officiating/conditions among schools that competed against each other.  It also allowed for a somewhat equal schedule among the members and a meaningful way to determine a champion.

Why aren't there different conferences for each sport?  When appropriate there are.   Besides the PAC-12, Stanford is in the MPSF (M&W water polo, artistic swimming), America East (FH), CSA (W Squash - all matches were Philly or further east), PCCSC (Sailing).

The conferences exist for their member schools.  Moreover, I believe the conference only exists at the pleasure of those members.

One might think that UCLA & USC felt about the PAC-12 leadership like various posters here and so left the conference.   What bothers me is that they seemingly did so without much notice or discussion with the other members of the conference.  At least publicly, there was no known prior discussion of what about the rest of the PAC-12.  Would a merger have been better, or a split and multiple mergers?

USC could be seen as wanting to avoid its past scandals and such.  I can not believe that the NCAA hasn't put a multi-year, multi(all)-sport ban on USC for the recent corruption across the athletic department.  I think the only two waiting for sentencing are the water polo coach and the pimp that lead everyone down the crooked path.

UCLA, especially as part of the UC system, is harder to understand why their departure was so sudden & disruptive.

Rather than boycotting the PAC-12, would it be better to try to have a boycott of all remaining USC & UCLA  PAC-12 games in every sport?