[Mick]

If indeed it is true that the PAC-12 rejected an offer from ESPN that was on a par with the BIG-12 situation (around 30 million per school) and held out for 51 million per school at the direction of the University presidents, clearly the PAC-12 deserved what happened to it. Indeed the Commissioner should have told the group that simply wasn't possible. If he did not, he obviously was unethical/incompetent.  In so far as any of this is true, it was a suicide by stupidity, not a murder. I am not a fan of the money game controlling college athletics, as I think few on this board are. However, it appears that the TV folks were willing to continue the Potlatch, at least for a while longer. Schools can be greedy too, not just TV executives.

I think the suspicion is the two schools who wanted the 50 mil were UO and UW. So they may have sabotaged the Pac just like SC sabotaged the Pac by blocking expansion talks with B12 schools while already with one foot in the B10.

Thinking back to the timing of the conference football decisions, Stanford had, in the not terribly distant past, won 8+ games (averaging 9.6 wins) and went to bowl games for ten seasons in a row, and David Shaw was being heavily recruited by the NFL. It wasn't such a stretch to think they were worth more than they were.

Stanford has now averaged 3.5 wins for the last four seasons.  They have an FBS head coach, a flood of players who departed via the portal and long-term dwindling fan support.  I think potential success in the major conferences, B1G included, is a considerable stretch. I'm a firm believer that you put people -- children, students, employees, teams, organizations -- in a position where they can be most successful. I think Stanford -- and Cal -- are most likely to be successful in a lesser conference, one in which the vagaries of the NIL market and the transfer portal will be less prevalent; e.g., the MWC. Rebrand the MWC as the PAC-16, and it will lift the boats of all teams considered...and Stanford and Cal will once again have seasons when they will average 10 wins or so. Better travel, lesser opponents, better records. And the locations are either close (SJSU) or fun to visit (San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc.) Maybe Stanford will travel well, and maybe our opponents will travel well.

Just as an aside...it's odd to me that the SEC, B1G and ACC didn't want more of the PAC teams. Every conference needs doormats (or perceived doormats), and in the race to limit conference opponents to the most successful teams, the average number of wins will likely drop. The 8 win teams become 6 win teams, the 10 win teams become 8 win teams. What happens then? I'm recommending that Stanford move in the opposite direction. Just food for thought.

[Mick]

If indeed it is true that the PAC-12 rejected an offer from ESPN that was on a par with the BIG-12 situation (around 30 million per school) and held out for 51 million per school at the direction of the University presidents, clearly the PAC-12 deserved what happened to it. Indeed the Commissioner should have told the group that simply wasn't possible. If he did not, he obviously was unethical/incompetent.  In so far as any of this is true, it was a suicide by stupidity, not a murder. I am not a fan of the money game controlling college athletics, as I think few on this board are. However, it appears that the TV folks were willing to continue the Potlatch, at least for a while longer. Schools can be greedy too, not just TV executives.

I think the suspicion is the two schools who wanted the 50 mil were UO and UW. So they may have sabotaged the Pac just like SC sabotaged the Pac by blocking expansion talks with B12 schools while already with one foot in the B10.

Thinking back to the timing of the conference football decisions, Stanford had, in the not terribly distant past, won 8+ games (averaging 9.6 wins) and went to bowl games for ten seasons in a row, and David Shaw was being heavily recruited by the NFL. It wasn't such a stretch to think they were worth more than they were.

Stanford has now averaged 3.5 wins for the last four seasons.  They have an FBS head coach, a flood of players who departed via the portal and long-term dwindling fan support.  I think potential success in the major conferences, B1G included, is a considerable stretch. I'm a firm believer that you put people -- children, students, employees, teams, organizations -- in a position where they can be most successful. I think Stanford -- and Cal -- are most likely to be successful in a lesser conference, one in which the vagaries of the NIL market and the transfer portal will be less prevalent; e.g., the MWC. Rebrand the MWC as the PAC-16, and it will lift the boats of all teams considered...and Stanford and Cal will once again have seasons when they will average 10 wins or so. Better travel, lesser opponents, better records. And the locations are either close (SJSU) or fun to visit (San Diego, Las Vegas, Hawaii, etc.) Maybe Stanford will travel well, and maybe our opponents will travel well.

Just as an aside...it's odd to me that the SEC, B1G and ACC didn't want more of the PAC teams. Every conference needs doormats (or perceived doormats), and in the race to limit conference opponents to the most successful teams, the average number of wins will likely drop. The 8 win teams become 6 win teams, the 10 win teams become 8 win teams. What happens then? I'm recommending that Stanford move in the opposite direction. Just food for thought.