[BostonCard]

H

A reminder that when we scheduled them, UCF was the body bag game.  They were 0-12 the year we first played them.

BC

This. Schedules are made 6-10 years in advance. It's a crap shoot to figure out who's gonna be good or not good that far out unless you are scheduling Ohio State or Alabama. UCF was a nobody before Scott Frost got there. I'm sure Stanford was thinking that Northwestern is a Power 5 that, on average, isn't in the AP top 25, and is a top academic school that we can get warm fuzzies playing.

it seems like our strategy has been for some time to schedule a team we feel we can almost always beat, a good academic school that we can usually beat, and ND. Unfortunately the first two didn't work out so well this year,

We don't know that yet. UCF has had two great years but in that time has lost many of the players that made them great. Northwestern is good, but not great.

Then again, with all the starters we have lost, I'm not sure that Stanford is even good.

Right, the nightmare scenario is UCF and Northwestern turn out to be mediocre teams, but we lose to them anyways.

BC

[BostonCard]

H

A reminder that when we scheduled them, UCF was the body bag game.  They were 0-12 the year we first played them.

BC

This. Schedules are made 6-10 years in advance. It's a crap shoot to figure out who's gonna be good or not good that far out unless you are scheduling Ohio State or Alabama. UCF was a nobody before Scott Frost got there. I'm sure Stanford was thinking that Northwestern is a Power 5 that, on average, isn't in the AP top 25, and is a top academic school that we can get warm fuzzies playing.

it seems like our strategy has been for some time to schedule a team we feel we can almost always beat, a good academic school that we can usually beat, and ND. Unfortunately the first two didn't work out so well this year,

We don't know that yet. UCF has had two great years but in that time has lost many of the players that made them great. Northwestern is good, but not great.

Then again, with all the starters we have lost, I'm not sure that Stanford is even good.

Right, the nightmare scenario is UCF and Northwestern turn out to be mediocre teams, but we lose to them anyways.

BC

[Mudhead]

I'm not sure if they pay attention to the "average fan" but I know that they paid attention to John Canzano's 4-part series on the Pac-12 operation. I reached out to both Muir and Tessier-Lavigne about this expose. I got a reply and follow-up exchange from Howard Wolff who manages alumni relations that was more than a form letter and talking points. It was clear that not only did Stanford take the expose seriously but that there were discussions with multiple AD's and Presidents at other schools about it.

My inference is that they weren't fully aware of the issues Canzano raised and that the bigger picture is not a good one. I have to believe that the more recent actions (loss of U-Verse, the PR firm, and floating the equity fiasco) only reinforce the problems with current leadership.

I find it hard to believe that Canzano “exposed” anything to Muir and Tessier-Lavigne.  It is more likely that they are getting blowback from a few hard-core sports fans.  Stanford’s interests are not necessarily going to align with the other members of the PAC-12, so fixes to increase revenue may actually not work to Stanford’s benefit overall.

I’m far from an expert or an “insider” if that means influencers.  I’ve had enough conversations, though, to be pretty sure that the Athletic Department at .stanford is very concerned with the direction and leadership of the PAC 12. I think this includes being concerned with Scott and I think Muir himself is not a  happy camper. Action is the prerogative of the Presidents, not of the ADs and probably should be.  I suspect they may be mollified by the image of the PAC 12 presented in the inane if not childish public service spots used to fill time slots not bought by paid advertising.  I worry that a WOK image is accepted as a substitute for success.  This is pure opinion and conjecture on my part.  I do not present it as fact.

[Mudhead]

I'm not sure if they pay attention to the "average fan" but I know that they paid attention to John Canzano's 4-part series on the Pac-12 operation. I reached out to both Muir and Tessier-Lavigne about this expose. I got a reply and follow-up exchange from Howard Wolff who manages alumni relations that was more than a form letter and talking points. It was clear that not only did Stanford take the expose seriously but that there were discussions with multiple AD's and Presidents at other schools about it.

My inference is that they weren't fully aware of the issues Canzano raised and that the bigger picture is not a good one. I have to believe that the more recent actions (loss of U-Verse, the PR firm, and floating the equity fiasco) only reinforce the problems with current leadership.

I find it hard to believe that Canzano “exposed” anything to Muir and Tessier-Lavigne.  It is more likely that they are getting blowback from a few hard-core sports fans.  Stanford’s interests are not necessarily going to align with the other members of the PAC-12, so fixes to increase revenue may actually not work to Stanford’s benefit overall.

I’m far from an expert or an “insider” if that means influencers.  I’ve had enough conversations, though, to be pretty sure that the Athletic Department at .stanford is very concerned with the direction and leadership of the PAC 12. I think this includes being concerned with Scott and I think Muir himself is not a  happy camper. Action is the prerogative of the Presidents, not of the ADs and probably should be.  I suspect they may be mollified by the image of the PAC 12 presented in the inane if not childish public service spots used to fill time slots not bought by paid advertising.  I worry that a WOK image is accepted as a substitute for success.  This is pure opinion and conjecture on my part.  I do not present it as fact.

[82lsju]

In a letter sent to Pac-12 executives following the 2018 season, three former football officials offered a sharp, detailed critique of the conference’s officiating program and asked “for necessary changes in a positive manner.”


Mack Gilchrist, Charles Czubin and Fred Gallagher, who have more than 100 years of experience as Pac-12 officials, directed their criticism at commissioner Larry Scott and vice president for officiating David Coleman, but they did not let general counsel Woodie Dixon off the hook.

“We do not appreciate the direction this Conference is headed under your direction by disgracing its long and respected heritage,’’ they wrote to the conference in late December. (See the full letter and other exchanges below.)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/21/letter-58/

[82lsju]

In a letter sent to Pac-12 executives following the 2018 season, three former football officials offered a sharp, detailed critique of the conference’s officiating program and asked “for necessary changes in a positive manner.”


Mack Gilchrist, Charles Czubin and Fred Gallagher, who have more than 100 years of experience as Pac-12 officials, directed their criticism at commissioner Larry Scott and vice president for officiating David Coleman, but they did not let general counsel Woodie Dixon off the hook.

“We do not appreciate the direction this Conference is headed under your direction by disgracing its long and respected heritage,’’ they wrote to the conference in late December. (See the full letter and other exchanges below.)

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/03/21/letter-58/