[OutsiderFan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MHver3/status/1543970964060471298?cxt=HHwWhIC8havapO0qAAAA[/tweet]

IF Stanford has at all reached out to the Big Ten as this tweet suggests, Stanford intends to keep its place in D1. If it is true Stanford said it would accept whatever it is worth (less than a full share of revenue), to me that is just. Stanford (and of course Cal) have really done nothing to increase the value of their football and hoops programs of late, and deserve to get less money for their media rights.

It seems like Stanford is more interested in the prestige of being in the Big Leagues than the money per se. That makes sense based on what I have perceived from Stanford my entire life.

[OutsiderFan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MHver3/status/1543970964060471298?cxt=HHwWhIC8havapO0qAAAA[/tweet]

IF Stanford has at all reached out to the Big Ten as this tweet suggests, Stanford intends to keep its place in D1. If it is true Stanford said it would accept whatever it is worth (less than a full share of revenue), to me that is just. Stanford (and of course Cal) have really done nothing to increase the value of their football and hoops programs of late, and deserve to get less money for their media rights.

It seems like Stanford is more interested in the prestige of being in the Big Leagues than the money per se. That makes sense based on what I have perceived from Stanford my entire life.

[BostonCard]

I am skeptical.  I could see the rest of the PAC-12 south moving to the Big-12.  The PAC-12 North is tricky; Oregon, Washington, Stanford and maybe Cal (in that order) are somewhat attractive but remote (not that it stopped the LA schools), the pac-12 is barely viable without the LA schools, let alone the pac-12 North rump, and there just aren’t a ton of schools to pick from in the West; adding SDSU or even BSU would likely be dilutive.  I can see Stanford land without a chair when the music stops.

BC

[BostonCard]

I am skeptical.  I could see the rest of the PAC-12 south moving to the Big-12.  The PAC-12 North is tricky; Oregon, Washington, Stanford and maybe Cal (in that order) are somewhat attractive but remote (not that it stopped the LA schools), the pac-12 is barely viable without the LA schools, let alone the pac-12 North rump, and there just aren’t a ton of schools to pick from in the West; adding SDSU or even BSU would likely be dilutive.  I can see Stanford land without a chair when the music stops.

BC

[dwc13]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MHver3/status/1543970964060471298?cxt=HHwWhIC8havapO0qAAAA[/tweet]

IF Stanford has at all reached out to the Big Ten as this tweet suggests, Stanford intends to keep its place in D1. If it is true Stanford said it would accept whatever it is worth (less than a full share of revenue), to me that is just. Stanford (and of course Cal) have really done nothing to increase the value of their football and hoops programs of late, and deserve to get less money for their media rights.

It seems like Stanford is more interested in the prestige of being in the Big Leagues than the money per se. That makes sense based on what I have perceived from Stanford my entire life.

Even if Stanford is willing to make an outright concession, I'm somewhat skeptical the B1G Ten membership would go along. Such a move would set a potentially dangerous precedent; it could open the door for a member that brings far more to the table (in terms of media rights contribution) to ask for a greater share. The B1G Ten members -- including the newest ones (Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers) once fully vested -- have always enjoyed equal shares of media rights monies. This is true even though the heavy lifting is done by Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska. Let's be honest, Fox & ESPN are not paying the conference big dollars for media rights because the networks covet the Rutgers-Minnesota or Illinois-Maryland matchups in football. Perhaps the B1G Ten could get really creative and structure a unique vesting period/ramp up/payout criteria for media rights for Stanford that would effectively amount to a partial share without explicitly being identified as such. At the end of the day, the football heavyweights in the conference understand without the other members, there isn't a conference. In the end, cooperation has worked very well for the B1G Ten membership w/r/t media rights.

FWIW, a key reason the B1G Ten broke off discussions with the University of Texas a few years ago is because that institution wanted to be a first among equals and keep its Longhorn Network (and associated revenues) even if it joined the conference. That was a non-starter for B1G Ten members despite other overwhelmingly positive things about UTA.   

As I mentioned in an earlier post on this forum, I think Stanford gets into the B1G Ten (assuming it is interested). From my perspective, it's not just about media rights value added when evaluating Stanford as a potential member. I hope I'm right about that.

[dwc13]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MHver3/status/1543970964060471298?cxt=HHwWhIC8havapO0qAAAA[/tweet]

IF Stanford has at all reached out to the Big Ten as this tweet suggests, Stanford intends to keep its place in D1. If it is true Stanford said it would accept whatever it is worth (less than a full share of revenue), to me that is just. Stanford (and of course Cal) have really done nothing to increase the value of their football and hoops programs of late, and deserve to get less money for their media rights.

It seems like Stanford is more interested in the prestige of being in the Big Leagues than the money per se. That makes sense based on what I have perceived from Stanford my entire life.

Even if Stanford is willing to make an outright concession, I'm somewhat skeptical the B1G Ten membership would go along. Such a move would set a potentially dangerous precedent; it could open the door for a member that brings far more to the table (in terms of media rights contribution) to ask for a greater share. The B1G Ten members -- including the newest ones (Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers) once fully vested -- have always enjoyed equal shares of media rights monies. This is true even though the heavy lifting is done by Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska. Let's be honest, Fox & ESPN are not paying the conference big dollars for media rights because the networks covet the Rutgers-Minnesota or Illinois-Maryland matchups in football. Perhaps the B1G Ten could get really creative and structure a unique vesting period/ramp up/payout criteria for media rights for Stanford that would effectively amount to a partial share without explicitly being identified as such. At the end of the day, the football heavyweights in the conference understand without the other members, there isn't a conference. In the end, cooperation has worked very well for the B1G Ten membership w/r/t media rights.

FWIW, a key reason the B1G Ten broke off discussions with the University of Texas a few years ago is because that institution wanted to be a first among equals and keep its Longhorn Network (and associated revenues) even if it joined the conference. That was a non-starter for B1G Ten members despite other overwhelmingly positive things about UTA.   

As I mentioned in an earlier post on this forum, I think Stanford gets into the B1G Ten (assuming it is interested). From my perspective, it's not just about media rights value added when evaluating Stanford as a potential member. I hope I'm right about that.

[OutsiderFan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MHver3/status/1544422388561068033?cxt=HHwWgoC-1dn-8e4qAAAA[/tweet]

If this is true, and the Big XII raids the Pac-12  for the four corners schools:

The Pac Six would be Washington, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Cal, and Stanford, which would kind of mandate adding new members, but none cary any value at all on par with those lost. 

If this is true and the Big XII raids the Pac-12 for the corners + Oregon and Washington:

The Pac 4 Four would be Washington State, Oregon State, Cal, and Stanford.

At that point, Cal and Stanford should just go independent and hope the Big Ten comes calling in the future.

But maybe SEC moves on the ACC might get Notre Dame to reconsider the Big Ten, and then things change again.

Or, BC gets his wish and Stanford pulls the plug on major college sports participation.

[OutsiderFan]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MHver3/status/1544422388561068033?cxt=HHwWgoC-1dn-8e4qAAAA[/tweet]

If this is true, and the Big XII raids the Pac-12  for the four corners schools:

The Pac Six would be Washington, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Cal, and Stanford, which would kind of mandate adding new members, but none cary any value at all on par with those lost. 

If this is true and the Big XII raids the Pac-12 for the corners + Oregon and Washington:

The Pac 4 Four would be Washington State, Oregon State, Cal, and Stanford.

At that point, Cal and Stanford should just go independent and hope the Big Ten comes calling in the future.

But maybe SEC moves on the ACC might get Notre Dame to reconsider the Big Ten, and then things change again.

Or, BC gets his wish and Stanford pulls the plug on major college sports participation.

[DenverCard]

In light of the issues of limited interest in Stanford Football in the Bay Area, NIL and athlete compensation that so changes the idea of a student athlete, and the cognitive dissonance re CTE that is called for when one watches football, I find myself in the "drop football" camp.  It works fine for Gonzaga, Georgetown, and other Division I schools that compete at a high level in other sports.

I strongly support maintaining excellence in all of the other sports.  And for many of them, belonging to a conference is not important. For sports centered on an end-of-season event, like swimming, track and field, cross country, and golf, being part of a conference is not required to have in-season events.  Other sports, such as soccer, could create ad-hoc conferences (each one unique to the particular team) as is currently the case with men's water polo and volleyball.  Given the burden of travel to far-flung places, these groupings would focus on historically good teams relatively near by.

Basketball is the most challenging situation, but a relatively small conference of the remaining Pac-12 teams and an emphasis on non-conference games, should be doable.  Same with baseball.

Given my interests and preferences, I favor going independent and remaining a force in college sports, but jettisoning football.  But I appreciate how painful that would be to those who love football, and how it does feel like quitting -- taking our ball and going home in the face of adversity.

[DenverCard]

In light of the issues of limited interest in Stanford Football in the Bay Area, NIL and athlete compensation that so changes the idea of a student athlete, and the cognitive dissonance re CTE that is called for when one watches football, I find myself in the "drop football" camp.  It works fine for Gonzaga, Georgetown, and other Division I schools that compete at a high level in other sports.

I strongly support maintaining excellence in all of the other sports.  And for many of them, belonging to a conference is not important. For sports centered on an end-of-season event, like swimming, track and field, cross country, and golf, being part of a conference is not required to have in-season events.  Other sports, such as soccer, could create ad-hoc conferences (each one unique to the particular team) as is currently the case with men's water polo and volleyball.  Given the burden of travel to far-flung places, these groupings would focus on historically good teams relatively near by.

Basketball is the most challenging situation, but a relatively small conference of the remaining Pac-12 teams and an emphasis on non-conference games, should be doable.  Same with baseball.

Given my interests and preferences, I favor going independent and remaining a force in college sports, but jettisoning football.  But I appreciate how painful that would be to those who love football, and how it does feel like quitting -- taking our ball and going home in the face of adversity.

[Giants]

Raiding the ACC is a non-starter.  Litigating the GoR would be a very expensive proposition with no definitive outcome. The Athletic had a great article about this topic (including an entire copy of the ACC GoR).  The best hope for any schools wanting to leave that conference at this time would be obtaining a release from their contractual obligation.  Good luck with that….

Note: The reason for the attached being signed by only the UNC Chancellor is that it was his copy that was requested under the FOIA.

https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/...ghts-1.pdf

[Giants]

Raiding the ACC is a non-starter.  Litigating the GoR would be a very expensive proposition with no definitive outcome. The Athletic had a great article about this topic (including an entire copy of the ACC GoR).  The best hope for any schools wanting to leave that conference at this time would be obtaining a release from their contractual obligation.  Good luck with that….

Note: The reason for the attached being signed by only the UNC Chancellor is that it was his copy that was requested under the FOIA.

https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/...ghts-1.pdf

[ColoradoTree]

Raiding the ACC is a non-starter.  Litigating the GoR would be a very expensive proposition with no definitive outcome. The Athletic had a great article about this topic (including an entire copy of the ACC GoR).  The best hope for any schools wanting to leave that conference at this time would be obtaining a release from their contractual obligation.  Good luck with that….

Note:  The reason for the attached being signed by only the UNC Chancellor is that it was his copy that was requested under the FOIA.

https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/...ghts-1.pdf

With enough money, all things are starters. I am confident that there is a group of boosters at Miami, FSU, and Clemson who would be thrilled to pony up the litigation/settlement money required to extract those schools from those agreements and start receiving that SEC money. After all, with ESPN being the major rights holder for the SEC, and as the ESPN agreement with the ACC is the whole reason for the grant of rights, they're probably content to see the SEC get even richer. If you're ESPN, you're probably trying to finagle the better remaining "properties" from the Pac-12 to come join whoever's left in the ACC. 

Let's assume the Pac-12 North is all that's left and joins with an ACC that just saw Clemson, Miami, and Florida State jump ship to the SEC. It has some schools we'd be content calling colleagues. An 18-team super conference with probably three regional divisions for the sports like football that all teams field:

Pacific Division: Stanford, Cal, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU
Atlantic Division: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, UVA, Virginia Tech (this assumes ND doesn't bolt for the Big Ten.)
Coastal Division: Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville, Georgia Tech

I... don't hate that. ESPN is probably pleased with it, too. If I'm the ACC, I'm trying to poach Stanford to try and keep Notre Dame from bailing. 

(This is just working up the A&P Conference idea that's been floated earlier in this thread, so this is hardly my invention, but what's been floating around otherwise.)

For all of these conferences right now, it's grow or die. Even if all 14 legacy ACC schools remain, adding the Pac-12 North gets you to an even 20. Or, you leave out OSU and WSU and you get to 18, with three 6-team divisions that maybe see Notre Dame in the "West" Division to get a guaranteed California road game every year, plus maybe Georgia Tech or something to make 6?

[ColoradoTree]

Raiding the ACC is a non-starter.  Litigating the GoR would be a very expensive proposition with no definitive outcome. The Athletic had a great article about this topic (including an entire copy of the ACC GoR).  The best hope for any schools wanting to leave that conference at this time would be obtaining a release from their contractual obligation.  Good luck with that….

Note:  The reason for the attached being signed by only the UNC Chancellor is that it was his copy that was requested under the FOIA.

https://cdn.theathletic.com/app/uploads/...ghts-1.pdf

With enough money, all things are starters. I am confident that there is a group of boosters at Miami, FSU, and Clemson who would be thrilled to pony up the litigation/settlement money required to extract those schools from those agreements and start receiving that SEC money. After all, with ESPN being the major rights holder for the SEC, and as the ESPN agreement with the ACC is the whole reason for the grant of rights, they're probably content to see the SEC get even richer. If you're ESPN, you're probably trying to finagle the better remaining "properties" from the Pac-12 to come join whoever's left in the ACC. 

Let's assume the Pac-12 North is all that's left and joins with an ACC that just saw Clemson, Miami, and Florida State jump ship to the SEC. It has some schools we'd be content calling colleagues. An 18-team super conference with probably three regional divisions for the sports like football that all teams field:

Pacific Division: Stanford, Cal, Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU
Atlantic Division: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, UVA, Virginia Tech (this assumes ND doesn't bolt for the Big Ten.)
Coastal Division: Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville, Georgia Tech

I... don't hate that. ESPN is probably pleased with it, too. If I'm the ACC, I'm trying to poach Stanford to try and keep Notre Dame from bailing. 

(This is just working up the A&P Conference idea that's been floated earlier in this thread, so this is hardly my invention, but what's been floating around otherwise.)

For all of these conferences right now, it's grow or die. Even if all 14 legacy ACC schools remain, adding the Pac-12 North gets you to an even 20. Or, you leave out OSU and WSU and you get to 18, with three 6-team divisions that maybe see Notre Dame in the "West" Division to get a guaranteed California road game every year, plus maybe Georgia Tech or something to make 6?

[Hulk01]

As a Stanford sports fan, I find myself in my oddest position ever. 

If Stanford wishes to join the Big Ten, my sister in law will be one of the Big Ten presidents voting. (The current Big Ten presidents, btw, are overwhelmingly female.)

Because of what it means to belong to the Big Ten, these presidents find Stanford irresistible-- far more so than Oregon or Washington. With Notre Dame, Stanford would appear to be a priority addition; the research sharing/access alone must look irresistible to my sister in law and her partners.

[Hulk01]

As a Stanford sports fan, I find myself in my oddest position ever. 

If Stanford wishes to join the Big Ten, my sister in law will be one of the Big Ten presidents voting. (The current Big Ten presidents, btw, are overwhelmingly female.)

Because of what it means to belong to the Big Ten, these presidents find Stanford irresistible-- far more so than Oregon or Washington. With Notre Dame, Stanford would appear to be a priority addition; the research sharing/access alone must look irresistible to my sister in law and her partners.

[Phogge]

For everybody's sake that wants Stanford to join the Big 20 I hope you get your wish. However Denver Card's take is attractive. As an old man and old fan I could be pleased either way.

[Phogge]

For everybody's sake that wants Stanford to join the Big 20 I hope you get your wish. However Denver Card's take is attractive. As an old man and old fan I could be pleased either way.

[oman]

ColoradoTree's solution sounds like a lot of fun.

[oman]

ColoradoTree's solution sounds like a lot of fun.

[jfredmuggs]

As a Stanford sports fan, I find myself in my oddest position ever. 

If Stanford wishes to join the Big Ten, my sister in law will be one of the Big Ten presidents voting. (The current Big Ten presidents, btw, are overwhelmingly female.)

Because of what it means to belong to the Big Ten, these presidents find Stanford irresistible-- far more so than Oregon or Washington. With Notre Dame, Stanford would appear to be a priority addition; the research sharing/access alone must look irresistible to my sister in law and her partners.

Sorry, not following this. What does research sharing/access have to do with being in the same athletic conference? I can understand why adding Stanford mught somehow enhance the “brand” if not the bottom line, but what difference does it make to academic/scientific research?

[jfredmuggs]

As a Stanford sports fan, I find myself in my oddest position ever. 

If Stanford wishes to join the Big Ten, my sister in law will be one of the Big Ten presidents voting. (The current Big Ten presidents, btw, are overwhelmingly female.)

Because of what it means to belong to the Big Ten, these presidents find Stanford irresistible-- far more so than Oregon or Washington. With Notre Dame, Stanford would appear to be a priority addition; the research sharing/access alone must look irresistible to my sister in law and her partners.

Sorry, not following this. What does research sharing/access have to do with being in the same athletic conference? I can understand why adding Stanford mught somehow enhance the “brand” if not the bottom line, but what difference does it make to academic/scientific research?

[BigJohn043]

While the B10 is an equal shares conference, both Maryland and Rutgers got a smaller payout during the first media rights deal once they joined.  So there is precedent for this kind of a deal and frankly smart for Stanford to consider.

The only way the four remaining southern schools bolt is if they are convinced that UO and UW are going to leave.  I don't think either of those schools is terribly attractive to the B10 although UW may be.

If the P10 was smart, they would be trying to do a deal with the ACC to merge.  Creates a big conference with all of the football powers outside the B10/SEC.  The ACC is stronger right now.  And while I am pretty convinced that UF & USC will block Miami, FSU and Clemson, this move would probably keep them all in the ACC.  Even better, might convince ND to keep its loose affiliation.  And it combines two conference with strong academics.

I would frankly rather be in a P10/ACC Alliance than the B10......

[BigJohn043]

While the B10 is an equal shares conference, both Maryland and Rutgers got a smaller payout during the first media rights deal once they joined.  So there is precedent for this kind of a deal and frankly smart for Stanford to consider.

The only way the four remaining southern schools bolt is if they are convinced that UO and UW are going to leave.  I don't think either of those schools is terribly attractive to the B10 although UW may be.

If the P10 was smart, they would be trying to do a deal with the ACC to merge.  Creates a big conference with all of the football powers outside the B10/SEC.  The ACC is stronger right now.  And while I am pretty convinced that UF & USC will block Miami, FSU and Clemson, this move would probably keep them all in the ACC.  Even better, might convince ND to keep its loose affiliation.  And it combines two conference with strong academics.

I would frankly rather be in a P10/ACC Alliance than the B10......

[chrisk]

While the B10 is an equal shares conference, both Maryland and Rutgers got a smaller payout during the first media rights deal once they joined.  So there is precedent for this kind of a deal and frankly smart for Stanford to consider.

The only way the four remaining southern schools bolt is if they are convinced that UO and UW are going to leave.  I don't think either of those schools is terribly attractive to the B10 although UW may be.

If the P10 was smart, they would be trying to do a deal with the ACC to merge.  Creates a big conference with all of the football powers outside the B10/SEC.  The ACC is stronger right now.  And while I am pretty convinced that UF & USC will block Miami, FSU and Clemson, this move would probably keep them all in the ACC.  Even better, might convince ND to keep its loose affiliation.  And it combines two conference with strong academics.

I would frankly rather be in a P10/ACC Alliance than the B10......

An arrangement between the ACC and the PAC-10 could create synergies without actually merging.

[chrisk]

While the B10 is an equal shares conference, both Maryland and Rutgers got a smaller payout during the first media rights deal once they joined.  So there is precedent for this kind of a deal and frankly smart for Stanford to consider.

The only way the four remaining southern schools bolt is if they are convinced that UO and UW are going to leave.  I don't think either of those schools is terribly attractive to the B10 although UW may be.

If the P10 was smart, they would be trying to do a deal with the ACC to merge.  Creates a big conference with all of the football powers outside the B10/SEC.  The ACC is stronger right now.  And while I am pretty convinced that UF & USC will block Miami, FSU and Clemson, this move would probably keep them all in the ACC.  Even better, might convince ND to keep its loose affiliation.  And it combines two conference with strong academics.

I would frankly rather be in a P10/ACC Alliance than the B10......

An arrangement between the ACC and the PAC-10 could create synergies without actually merging.

[Softball Fan]

An arrangement between the ACC and the PAC-10 could create synergies without actually merging.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...las-vegas/

"The ACC and Pac-12 have discussed what has been termed a "loose partnership" that could end the season with the conferences playing a "championship game" in Las Vegas, sources confirm to CBS Sports."

[Softball Fan]

An arrangement between the ACC and the PAC-10 could create synergies without actually merging.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...las-vegas/

"The ACC and Pac-12 have discussed what has been termed a "loose partnership" that could end the season with the conferences playing a "championship game" in Las Vegas, sources confirm to CBS Sports."

[chrisk]

An arrangement between the ACC and the PAC-10 could create synergies without actually merging.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...las-vegas/

"The ACC and Pac-12 have discussed what has been termed a "loose partnership" that could end the season with the conferences playing a "championship game" in Las Vegas, sources confirm to CBS Sports."

The link to the Canzano blog in the CBS artice is worth checking out. Oregon's media value ($30M?) compared to USC ($75M?) is not going to make them more attractive to other conferences (at least in a way that would benefit them compared to what they could do by maximazing the new Pac-10 operation).

[chrisk]

An arrangement between the ACC and the PAC-10 could create synergies without actually merging.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...las-vegas/

"The ACC and Pac-12 have discussed what has been termed a "loose partnership" that could end the season with the conferences playing a "championship game" in Las Vegas, sources confirm to CBS Sports."

The link to the Canzano blog in the CBS artice is worth checking out. Oregon's media value ($30M?) compared to USC ($75M?) is not going to make them more attractive to other conferences (at least in a way that would benefit them compared to what they could do by maximazing the new Pac-10 operation).

[Mick]

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah are rumored to be moving to the Big 12. 
 
The Big 12 is adding BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF in 2023.  It will be a 14-team league until Texas and Oklahoma leave for the SEC, then a 16 team league when the four ex-Pac-12 teams arrive.
 
Colorado was a founding member of the Big 12, incidentally.

Pac-12 implosion might not be done with 4 teams reportedly moving to Big 12 (msn.com)

[Mick]

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah are rumored to be moving to the Big 12. 
 
The Big 12 is adding BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and UCF in 2023.  It will be a 14-team league until Texas and Oklahoma leave for the SEC, then a 16 team league when the four ex-Pac-12 teams arrive.
 
Colorado was a founding member of the Big 12, incidentally.

Pac-12 implosion might not be done with 4 teams reportedly moving to Big 12 (msn.com)

[BostonCard]

The Oregon estimate seems off.  I saw numbers for the PAC-12 that indicated that the conference would get about $500 million a year with USC/UCLA and $300 million a year without.  That $300 million divided by 10 teams would be about $30 million a year per team, which might be where you get that figure.  But Oregon is probably worth more than the average PAC-10 team, so I imagine the Ducks would bring more to the table than that.  Are they worth $80 million, which is what they would have to bring to the B1G or SEC for parity?  No.

BC

[BostonCard]

The Oregon estimate seems off.  I saw numbers for the PAC-12 that indicated that the conference would get about $500 million a year with USC/UCLA and $300 million a year without.  That $300 million divided by 10 teams would be about $30 million a year per team, which might be where you get that figure.  But Oregon is probably worth more than the average PAC-10 team, so I imagine the Ducks would bring more to the table than that.  Are they worth $80 million, which is what they would have to bring to the B1G or SEC for parity?  No.

BC

[thatboy]

Given my interests and preferences, I favor going independent and remaining a force in college sports, but jettisoning football.  But I appreciate how painful that would be to those who love football, and how it does feel like quitting -- taking our ball and going home in the face of adversity.

I don't follow these things as closely as most of you, but from my cursory knowledge wouldn't this be cost-prohibitive? I was under the impression that Stanford's other sports depend largely on money from football. So if we dropped football how would we finance everything else? I'm not opposed to this idea in theory, but just not sure if it's viable.

[thatboy]

Given my interests and preferences, I favor going independent and remaining a force in college sports, but jettisoning football.  But I appreciate how painful that would be to those who love football, and how it does feel like quitting -- taking our ball and going home in the face of adversity.

I don't follow these things as closely as most of you, but from my cursory knowledge wouldn't this be cost-prohibitive? I was under the impression that Stanford's other sports depend largely on money from football. So if we dropped football how would we finance everything else? I'm not opposed to this idea in theory, but just not sure if it's viable.

[needle]

What we don't know (that not enough people are considering):

1.) Is there an organized, motivated and litigious group willing to lay it all on the line to oppose 18+ member megaconferences?

2.) What would the implications be for college megaconferences (and college sports in general) if the Johnson v NCAA goes the way of declaring athletes as employees? Could colleges someday be on the hook for paying the medical expenses of former athletes showing symptoms of CTE?

3.) NIL has been in place for one year, seemingly without scandal. How likely is it that these (reportedly) millions (and growing) in direct-to-player payments continue without a big-time scandal, and what would be the fallout of such a scandal for an institution and its athletic conference, should it happen?

4.) How much power will agents wield in this world of college sports where players can have representation for endorsement deals?

[needle]

What we don't know (that not enough people are considering):

1.) Is there an organized, motivated and litigious group willing to lay it all on the line to oppose 18+ member megaconferences?

2.) What would the implications be for college megaconferences (and college sports in general) if the Johnson v NCAA goes the way of declaring athletes as employees? Could colleges someday be on the hook for paying the medical expenses of former athletes showing symptoms of CTE?

3.) NIL has been in place for one year, seemingly without scandal. How likely is it that these (reportedly) millions (and growing) in direct-to-player payments continue without a big-time scandal, and what would be the fallout of such a scandal for an institution and its athletic conference, should it happen?

4.) How much power will agents wield in this world of college sports where players can have representation for endorsement deals?

[BostonCard]

What would a n NiL scandal even look like, given that we basically have no rules around NIL’s, and pay-to-play is basically an open secret that doesn’t seem to bother anyone.

I guess if there were an NIL-linked gambling scandal?

BC

[BostonCard]

What would a n NiL scandal even look like, given that we basically have no rules around NIL’s, and pay-to-play is basically an open secret that doesn’t seem to bother anyone.

I guess if there were an NIL-linked gambling scandal?

BC