Maybe Stanford is getting prepared for ~ 2030 when the B1G decides to expand again (or so we've been told it'll be that long of a wait)
From the article in Stanford's student-run newspaper:
Per Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne: "... the 10 universities are focused on working with our (Pac-12) commissioner to strike a deal that would be good for the conference, but more importantly good for our student athletes."
According to Jeff Koseff, Stanford's faculty athletics representative, that may be a problem:
... the financial overview revealed that the athletics department is running a financial loss. “The income and expenses do not match,” Koseff said. “It’s something that is actively being worked on.”
Koseff pointed out that $40 million is derived from the Pac-12 through media rights and March Madness. This large sum “should be what drives a lot of decision-making going forward,” Koseff said.
In terms of the national landscape, there are shifting allegiances. USC and UCLA left the Pac-12 to join the Big 10. The Pac-12 and the Big 10 are NCAA Division I athletic conferences.
Since this move, conference realignment has been a topic of consideration among the Stanford administration, according to Koseff. Schools in the Big 10 make significantly more from media rights, which could result in “an extra $50 million,” Koseff said.
“It has enormous consequences for our student athletes so it is not an issue that can be taken lightly,” Koseff said.
Tessier-Levigne added that Stanford authorized its commissioner to open media rights negotiations.
He then explained Stanford’s parameters in making a conference change decision: “From a Stanford point of view, what we want is to make sure that we can continue to provide an exceptional academic and athletic experience to our extraordinary student athletes and also to be part of a competitive conference that is stable and also financially viable.”
He added, “What time frame exactly is unclear but the negotiations are ongoing.”
Tick, tick, tick ...
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/08/tes...e-meeting/
(11-08-2022 11:23 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe Stanford is getting prepared for ~ 2030 when the B1G decides to expand again (or so we've been told it'll be that long of a wait)
From the article in Stanford's student-run newspaper:
Per Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne: "... the 10 universities are focused on working with our (Pac-12) commissioner to strike a deal that would be good for the conference, but more importantly good for our student athletes."
According to Jeff Koseff, Stanford's faculty athletics representative, that may be a problem:
... the financial overview revealed that the athletics department is running a financial loss. “The income and expenses do not match,” Koseff said. “It’s something that is actively being worked on.”
Koseff pointed out that $40 million is derived from the Pac-12 through media rights and March Madness. This large sum “should be what drives a lot of decision-making going forward,” Koseff said.
In terms of the national landscape, there are shifting allegiances. USC and UCLA left the Pac-12 to join the Big 10. The Pac-12 and the Big 10 are NCAA Division I athletic conferences.
Since this move, conference realignment has been a topic of consideration among the Stanford administration, according to Koseff. Schools in the Big 10 make significantly more from media rights, which could result in “an extra $50 million,” Koseff said.
“It has enormous consequences for our student athletes so it is not an issue that can be taken lightly,” Koseff said.
Tessier-Levigne added that Stanford authorized its commissioner to open media rights negotiations.
He then explained Stanford’s parameters in making a conference change decision: “From a Stanford point of view, what we want is to make sure that we can continue to provide an exceptional academic and athletic experience to our extraordinary student athletes and also to be part of a competitive conference that is stable and also financially viable.”
He added, “What time frame exactly is unclear but the negotiations are ongoing.”[/i]
Tick, tick, tick ...
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/08/tes...e-meeting/
Yes, if a Big Ten invitation falls into their laps, Stanford will move.
Aw, the mirage meetings where faculty can feel important.
(11-08-2022 11:31 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]Aw, the mirage meetings where faculty can feel important.
Seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if some there felt like they should call the Ivy League.
(11-08-2022 12:10 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2022 11:31 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]Aw, the mirage meetings where faculty can feel important.
Seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if some there felt like they should call the Ivy League.
On away games, leave the damn tree at home.
The State of California preventing UCLA from joining the Big Ten followed by the Big Ten adding Stanford, Oregon and Washington is my dream scenario.
I would never stop laughing.
(11-08-2022 12:51 PM)cubucks Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2022 12:10 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2022 11:31 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]Aw, the mirage meetings where faculty can feel important.
Seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if some there felt like they should call the Ivy League.
On away games, leave the damn tree at home.
Sorry, .meant to post that by itself and not in response to you.
(11-08-2022 12:52 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote: [ -> ]The State of California preventing UCLA from joining the Big Ten followed by the Big Ten adding Stanford, Oregon and Washington is my dream scenario.
I would never stop laughing.
This California drama is hilarious to watch!
$50 million more? He's talking like they've been offered as a full member and they don't decrease the BIG value?
To avoid a haircut, Pac is going to have to sign away rights for longer than the Big 12 or Big Ten.
(11-08-2022 01:31 PM)Crayton Wrote: [ -> ]To avoid a haircut, Pac is going to have to sign away rights for longer than the Big 12 or Big Ten.
I really am not remotely convinced that all 10 PAC teams (especially Oregon and Washington) would sign a GOR.
I especially am not convinced that Oregon and Washington would be willing to both have a GOR and equal revenue sharing. Maybe they'll agree to one of those two things, but they'd honestly be pretty big wimps to cave in on both issues.
And I'm not even going to get started on the idea that they'd be willing to have a GOR and have equal revenue sharing and invite SMU and SDSU to the conference.
(11-08-2022 11:23 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe Stanford is getting prepared for ~ 2030 when the B1G decides to expand again (or so we've been told it'll be that long of a wait)
From the article in Stanford's student-run newspaper:
Per Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne: "... the 10 universities are focused on working with our (Pac-12) commissioner to strike a deal that would be good for the conference, but more importantly good for our student athletes."
According to Jeff Koseff, Stanford's faculty athletics representative, that may be a problem:
... the financial overview revealed that the athletics department is running a financial loss. “The income and expenses do not match,” Koseff said. “It’s something that is actively being worked on.”
Koseff pointed out that $40 million is derived from the Pac-12 through media rights and March Madness. This large sum “should be what drives a lot of decision-making going forward,” Koseff said.
In terms of the national landscape, there are shifting allegiances. USC and UCLA left the Pac-12 to join the Big 10. The Pac-12 and the Big 10 are NCAA Division I athletic conferences.
Since this move, conference realignment has been a topic of consideration among the Stanford administration, according to Koseff. Schools in the Big 10 make significantly more from media rights, which could result in “an extra $50 million,” Koseff said.
“It has enormous consequences for our student athletes so it is not an issue that can be taken lightly,” Koseff said.
Tessier-Levigne added that Stanford authorized its commissioner to open media rights negotiations.
He then explained Stanford’s parameters in making a conference change decision: “From a Stanford point of view, what we want is to make sure that we can continue to provide an exceptional academic and athletic experience to our extraordinary student athletes and also to be part of a competitive conference that is stable and also financially viable.”
He added, “What time frame exactly is unclear but the negotiations are ongoing.”
Tick, tick, tick ...
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/08/tes...e-meeting/
So the faculty is advocating for the Big Ten?
I suppose that's not a surprise, but you have to have an invite first.
...seems like a LOT of leaning toward the B1G in those statements... perhaps waiting to see if the Cal Board kneecaps UCLA's attempt to move...
...and I would think that Stanford, UO, and Udub have all had several interactions with the B1G reps, as well as amongst each other... you would think that 'agreements' of a sort would be formed... ...perhaps even something like an... ...alliance?
(11-08-2022 02:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2022 11:23 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe Stanford is getting prepared for ~ 2030 when the B1G decides to expand again (or so we've been told it'll be that long of a wait)
From the article in Stanford's student-run newspaper:
Per Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne: "... the 10 universities are focused on working with our (Pac-12) commissioner to strike a deal that would be good for the conference, but more importantly good for our student athletes."
According to Jeff Koseff, Stanford's faculty athletics representative, that may be a problem:
... the financial overview revealed that the athletics department is running a financial loss. “The income and expenses do not match,” Koseff said. “It’s something that is actively being worked on.”
Koseff pointed out that $40 million is derived from the Pac-12 through media rights and March Madness. This large sum “should be what drives a lot of decision-making going forward,” Koseff said.
In terms of the national landscape, there are shifting allegiances. USC and UCLA left the Pac-12 to join the Big 10. The Pac-12 and the Big 10 are NCAA Division I athletic conferences.
Since this move, conference realignment has been a topic of consideration among the Stanford administration, according to Koseff. Schools in the Big 10 make significantly more from media rights, which could result in “an extra $50 million,” Koseff said.
“It has enormous consequences for our student athletes so it is not an issue that can be taken lightly,” Koseff said.
Tessier-Levigne added that Stanford authorized its commissioner to open media rights negotiations.
He then explained Stanford’s parameters in making a conference change decision: “From a Stanford point of view, what we want is to make sure that we can continue to provide an exceptional academic and athletic experience to our extraordinary student athletes and also to be part of a competitive conference that is stable and also financially viable.”
He added, “What time frame exactly is unclear but the negotiations are ongoing.”
Tick, tick, tick ...
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/08/tes...e-meeting/
So the faculty is advocating for the Big Ten?
I suppose that's not a surprise, but you have to have an invite first.
(11-08-2022 02:05 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote: [ -> ]...seems like a LOT of leaning toward the B1G in those statements... perhaps waiting to see if the Cal Board kneecaps UCLA's attempt to move...
...and I would think that Stanford, UO, and Udub have all had several interactions with the B1G reps, as well as amongst each other... you would think that 'agreements' of a sort would be formed... ...perhaps even something like an... ...alliance?
I think it's more that faculty are coming into this situation cold, having no idea how any of this works, and are like "sure, obviously we'd like to get an extra $50M a year for the athletic department. You can join a national conference and not just regional? OK, we should do that."
What do you mean you have to be invited?
(11-08-2022 02:05 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote: [ -> ]...seems like a LOT of leaning toward the B1G in those statements... perhaps waiting to see if the Cal Board kneecaps UCLA's attempt to move...
...and I would think that Stanford, UO, and Udub have all had several interactions with the B1G reps, as well as amongst each other... you would think that 'agreements' of a sort would be formed... ...perhaps even something like an... ...alliance?
Not really sure why some people think that Stanford is the Big 10's next preference from the PAC. It's pretty clear that Oregon and Washington would bring more money to the conference.
The only way I can really see Cal and Stanford being invited to the Big 10 ahead of Oregon and Washington is if Newsom's threats are more serious than they seem, the Big 10 decides to invite Cal in order to prevent UCLA from being blocked, and the Big 10 decides to invite Stanford as Cal's partner so that Olympic sports teams can double up on trips to San Francisco. (And also possibly because of political power that Stanford might have in California, despite being a private university.)
But I think that's a highly unlikely scenario.
(11-08-2022 02:34 PM)Poster Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2022 02:05 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote: [ -> ]...seems like a LOT of leaning toward the B1G in those statements... perhaps waiting to see if the Cal Board kneecaps UCLA's attempt to move...
...and I would think that Stanford, UO, and Udub have all had several interactions with the B1G reps, as well as amongst each other... you would think that 'agreements' of a sort would be formed... ...perhaps even something like an... ...alliance?
Not really sure why some people think that Stanford is the Big 10's next preference from the PAC. It's pretty clear that Oregon and Washington would bring more money to the conference.
The only way I can really see Cal and Stanford being invited to the Big 10 ahead of Oregon and Washington is if Newsom's threats are more serious than they seem, the Big 10 decides to invite Cal in order to prevent UCLA from being blocked, and the Big 10 decides to invite Stanford as Cal's partner so that Olympic sports teams can double up on trips to San Francisco.
But I think that's a highly unlikely scenario.
Or it's a Rutgers / Maryland type move, to plant a Big Ten outpost in the northern California market. Cable is declining, but still a force. And what's gaining power recently isn't streaming--it's OTA TV, and having Stanford in the conference should boost the ratings for Big Ten games at the network-owned CBS, NBC and Fox affiliates in San Franscisco. OTA TV is a business of thin margins, and the markets where the network owns the TV station gives them two bites at the revenue apple.
I don't think the Big 10 will make too many decisions based on Newsom's threats. If anything they'd just wait 2-4 more years until he's out of the way.
Do the rest of the Four Corners & NW State schools a favor and just leave already.
(11-08-2022 12:51 PM)cubucks Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2022 12:10 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2022 11:31 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: [ -> ]Aw, the mirage meetings where faculty can feel important.
Seriously. I wouldn't be surprised if some there felt like they should call the Ivy League.
On away games, leave the damn tree at home.
Bring a sapling.
(11-08-2022 02:34 PM)Poster Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2022 02:05 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote: [ -> ]...seems like a LOT of leaning toward the B1G in those statements... perhaps waiting to see if the Cal Board kneecaps UCLA's attempt to move...
...and I would think that Stanford, UO, and Udub have all had several interactions with the B1G reps, as well as amongst each other... you would think that 'agreements' of a sort would be formed... ...perhaps even something like an... ...alliance?
Not really sure why some people think that Stanford is the Big 10's next preference from the PAC. It's pretty clear that Oregon and Washington would bring more money to the conference.
Because it wouldn't be
much more money than Washington and Stanford, and between the schools that have lots of alumni in San Francisco and the academic snobs, there might be sufficient compensation.