[Goose]

To me, joining the ACC at this point, while everything seems up in the air, and knowing that it'd be a binding agreement for the next 10+ years, feels ill-advised, panicky, and rushed.

The ACC Grant of Rights is  IMO an insurmountable hurdle to Stanford joining the ACC. It would bind us to the conference until 2035 as I understand it. If college football figures out a more "acceptable" organization before then, Stanford can't just leave and embrace the "new" model. Worse still IMO the ACC itself could vote to do things Stanford deeply opposes, but we would still be "stuck" there. We can't even credibly threaten to leave.

I wouldn't call it an insurmountable hurdle. It just means joining the ACC is a one way trip for at least a decade. All or nothing, no dating the ACC while waiting until the Big10 is single. Which is the right move if no Big10 opening is forthcoming.  Ideally we are using the ACC as leverage for a spot in the Big10. But if that spot doesn't appear, we should proceed with the ACC.

What it does is ensure that Stanford plays football at the big kids table for at least the next decade.  While the ACC payout isn't Big10 level, it puts us at least in the same stratosphere, which being independent or joining the MWC would not.

Unfortunately, IMO it ensures nothing. The ACC itself has a myriad of problems, any one of which could lead to implosion. Of the 4 remaining "P-5" conferences, it is the only one with members who are actively seeking an exit. That alone isn't good. Further, what the ACC may chose to do during those 10+ years may not fit well with Stanford at all. There is certainly a culture gap at present. Of course, it could work out fine and all would be well. However, that isn't probable IMHO, and the lack of a reasonable exit mechanism is a very big risk. If Stanford had functioned like ND and been part of the ACC for some time, the potential issues could be evaluated and de-risked. Continuing the analogy, we are being asked to marry somebody we haven't even dated and don't really know. On top of that, there is a prenuptial agreement that says we lose everything and get nothing if there is a divorce before 2035. Doesn't sound great to me.

I for one believe we are reaching peak rights fees for college sports. Networks are getting smarter about getting into bidding wars, national interest will gradually wane given the professionalization of college athletics and the destruction of local rivalries and traditions.  In my view, the only reasons the Alabama's and Ohio State's of the world have agreed to equal revenue splits are conference traditions and the fact that the pie has been growing exponentially. Once the pie stops growing, the SEC and Big10 are going to start carving themselves up to get a bigger piece.  I believe that eventually those conferences either split apart to form a smaller nationwide "super league" with only blue bloods invited, or the conferences agree to radically unequal revenue splits.

I think you are quite correct.

[Goose]

To me, joining the ACC at this point, while everything seems up in the air, and knowing that it'd be a binding agreement for the next 10+ years, feels ill-advised, panicky, and rushed.

The ACC Grant of Rights is  IMO an insurmountable hurdle to Stanford joining the ACC. It would bind us to the conference until 2035 as I understand it. If college football figures out a more "acceptable" organization before then, Stanford can't just leave and embrace the "new" model. Worse still IMO the ACC itself could vote to do things Stanford deeply opposes, but we would still be "stuck" there. We can't even credibly threaten to leave.

I wouldn't call it an insurmountable hurdle. It just means joining the ACC is a one way trip for at least a decade. All or nothing, no dating the ACC while waiting until the Big10 is single. Which is the right move if no Big10 opening is forthcoming.  Ideally we are using the ACC as leverage for a spot in the Big10. But if that spot doesn't appear, we should proceed with the ACC.

What it does is ensure that Stanford plays football at the big kids table for at least the next decade.  While the ACC payout isn't Big10 level, it puts us at least in the same stratosphere, which being independent or joining the MWC would not.

Unfortunately, IMO it ensures nothing. The ACC itself has a myriad of problems, any one of which could lead to implosion. Of the 4 remaining "P-5" conferences, it is the only one with members who are actively seeking an exit. That alone isn't good. Further, what the ACC may chose to do during those 10+ years may not fit well with Stanford at all. There is certainly a culture gap at present. Of course, it could work out fine and all would be well. However, that isn't probable IMHO, and the lack of a reasonable exit mechanism is a very big risk. If Stanford had functioned like ND and been part of the ACC for some time, the potential issues could be evaluated and de-risked. Continuing the analogy, we are being asked to marry somebody we haven't even dated and don't really know. On top of that, there is a prenuptial agreement that says we lose everything and get nothing if there is a divorce before 2035. Doesn't sound great to me.

I for one believe we are reaching peak rights fees for college sports. Networks are getting smarter about getting into bidding wars, national interest will gradually wane given the professionalization of college athletics and the destruction of local rivalries and traditions.  In my view, the only reasons the Alabama's and Ohio State's of the world have agreed to equal revenue splits are conference traditions and the fact that the pie has been growing exponentially. Once the pie stops growing, the SEC and Big10 are going to start carving themselves up to get a bigger piece.  I believe that eventually those conferences either split apart to form a smaller nationwide "super league" with only blue bloods invited, or the conferences agree to radically unequal revenue splits.

I think you are quite correct.