[fullmetal]

No, it's a win for the student-athletes and the fans too. Those who don't have their heads in the sand understand that you need a power conference affiliation for Stanford to sustain what you're interested in for the student-athletes and the fans. It wouldn't be very good for student-athletes or fans to have to shed a bunch of varsity sports, compete against far-below elite competitors, never be talked about in national conversations, and just generally circle the drain. If we're going to be the Home of Champions we need to play major sports.

Muir was perfectly fine with shedding varsity sports a few years ago before realignment; it's his go-to tactic to shore up budgetary issues despite handing out nice pay bumps to a very large athletic department payroll.  Many of the varsity sports targeted are now nearly self-sufficient (or at least on a good path toward self-sufficiency) and shouldn't be a factor in the budget going forward.

It might be a win for football/basketball, but it's not a win for the Olympic sports that the ACC sponsors.  And I don't even know if I'd call it a win.  ACC membership would salvage the athletic department from certain oblivion at the cost of substantial impacts to student-athlete life/academics as well as athletic competitive opportunity.  It's a decent step back from the ledge.  But I can't pretend that football/basketball are all that matter.

What's your alternative for the Olympic sports (many of which I assume will be in the MPSF regardless, by the way)? Do the minor conferences remaining on the West Coast provide "athletic competitive opportunity?"

I probably should have said "non-revenue" sports instead of Olympic.  For the MPSF, et al. sports, there is likely no need for an alternative unless the ACC sponsors those sports (oof).  The MPSF, et al. are not going away.  Examples: artistic swimming, men's gymnastics, squash, sailing, men's volleyball, men's/women's water polo.

The ACC, as it turns out, is pretty darn good at the non-revenue sports too: they'll sponsor a conference championship as long as there are four member schools who field teams.  With the upcoming addition of women's lacrosse and women's gymnastics to the ACC sponsorship slate, that's a majority of sports for which Stanford will probably have to fly cross-country just to compete "in conference."  I don't expect exceptions to be made; the addition of Stanford to the ACC in non-rev sports will boost ACC reputation and competitive standing.  The equipment trailers for certain sports are about to get a ton of wear and tear: softball, soccer, rowing, fencing, golf, lacrosse, field hockey.
https://theacc.com/news/2021/6/17/genera...stics.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_C...nce#Sports

The Stanford teams currently affiliated with non-Pac 12 conferences that will likely have to switch to the ACC due to conference sponsorship on the east coast are men's/women's fencing, and field hockey (okay they were traveling east anyway).

There are a couple of Pac-12 sports that are not sponsored by the ACC.  Those programs will have to find a new conference affiliation, e.g. beach volleyball, men's rowing. The Pac-12 programs should try to find a home in an existing conference if neither the Big 12, Big 10, nor ACC sponsor those sports.  Ask the MPSF to begin sponsoring beach volleyball and men's rowing.  I think the NCAA beach volleyball bids to nationals are handed out by region, not conference championship, but I don't remember.  Don't even get me started on the rowing.  Asking a smaller conference to be let in is an unlikely event if conference championships determine automatic bids to nationals.

[fullmetal]

No, it's a win for the student-athletes and the fans too. Those who don't have their heads in the sand understand that you need a power conference affiliation for Stanford to sustain what you're interested in for the student-athletes and the fans. It wouldn't be very good for student-athletes or fans to have to shed a bunch of varsity sports, compete against far-below elite competitors, never be talked about in national conversations, and just generally circle the drain. If we're going to be the Home of Champions we need to play major sports.

Muir was perfectly fine with shedding varsity sports a few years ago before realignment; it's his go-to tactic to shore up budgetary issues despite handing out nice pay bumps to a very large athletic department payroll.  Many of the varsity sports targeted are now nearly self-sufficient (or at least on a good path toward self-sufficiency) and shouldn't be a factor in the budget going forward.

It might be a win for football/basketball, but it's not a win for the Olympic sports that the ACC sponsors.  And I don't even know if I'd call it a win.  ACC membership would salvage the athletic department from certain oblivion at the cost of substantial impacts to student-athlete life/academics as well as athletic competitive opportunity.  It's a decent step back from the ledge.  But I can't pretend that football/basketball are all that matter.

What's your alternative for the Olympic sports (many of which I assume will be in the MPSF regardless, by the way)? Do the minor conferences remaining on the West Coast provide "athletic competitive opportunity?"

I probably should have said "non-revenue" sports instead of Olympic.  For the MPSF, et al. sports, there is likely no need for an alternative unless the ACC sponsors those sports (oof).  The MPSF, et al. are not going away.  Examples: artistic swimming, men's gymnastics, squash, sailing, men's volleyball, men's/women's water polo.

The ACC, as it turns out, is pretty darn good at the non-revenue sports too: they'll sponsor a conference championship as long as there are four member schools who field teams.  With the upcoming addition of women's lacrosse and women's gymnastics to the ACC sponsorship slate, that's a majority of sports for which Stanford will probably have to fly cross-country just to compete "in conference."  I don't expect exceptions to be made; the addition of Stanford to the ACC in non-rev sports will boost ACC reputation and competitive standing.  The equipment trailers for certain sports are about to get a ton of wear and tear: softball, soccer, rowing, fencing, golf, lacrosse, field hockey.
https://theacc.com/news/2021/6/17/genera...stics.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_C...nce#Sports

The Stanford teams currently affiliated with non-Pac 12 conferences that will likely have to switch to the ACC due to conference sponsorship on the east coast are men's/women's fencing, and field hockey (okay they were traveling east anyway).

There are a couple of Pac-12 sports that are not sponsored by the ACC.  Those programs will have to find a new conference affiliation, e.g. beach volleyball, men's rowing. The Pac-12 programs should try to find a home in an existing conference if neither the Big 12, Big 10, nor ACC sponsor those sports.  Ask the MPSF to begin sponsoring beach volleyball and men's rowing.  I think the NCAA beach volleyball bids to nationals are handed out by region, not conference championship, but I don't remember.  Don't even get me started on the rowing.  Asking a smaller conference to be let in is an unlikely event if conference championships determine automatic bids to nationals.