Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

College Football (and college sports generally) Queens - Washington and Oregon to the Big 10

USC and UCLA previously jumped from the Pac-12 to the Big Ten (to start in 2024). Colorado left the Pac-12 for the Big 12. Arizona's application to the Big 12 has been accepted (thought he Board of Regents hasn't done final approval). Arizona St. and Utah possibly leaving the Pac-12 for the Big 12 as well (lots of rumors, but nothing definite).

There's a good chance the Pac-12 completely implodes, but we're not quite there yet.

If this all happens as being reported, UCLA v. Rutgers, and Washington v. Maryland will be conference games. From sea to shining sea. Lol. The Big 10 Track and Field Championships at Hayward filed in Eugene sounds crazy.

Big question - what happens to Stanford and Cal.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 111September 16, 2023 8:03 PM

Stanford goes independent and waits it out until Notre Dame wants to join Big 10 and then go in together. Cal might just as well give up sports. Their money situation sucks and their football and basketball teams do as well. It's not a surprise no one wants them.

by Anonymousreply 1August 4, 2023 10:01 PM

I hate this even more than I did the 2014 addition of Rutgers and Maryland. The Big 10 should be a Midwest league.

by Anonymousreply 2August 4, 2023 10:10 PM

Rutgers and Maryland are at least in states that touch a state with a Big 10 school (PA). The footprint of the Big 10 with Rutgers and Maryland looks quaint and small compared to the new conference. I really don't care that much, but it seems like they're not thinking things out long term. But that's just an assumption. They want money now and everybody is in the middle of a cash grab.

by Anonymousreply 3August 4, 2023 10:22 PM

I'll add Florida State wants out of the ACC. I have heard rumors that the SEC has at least looked at Virginia and Virginia Tech (my state). Clemson and Miami are SEC possibles. The problem is that these schools agreed to $120+ million exit fee if they leave the ACC before 2036. Cal, Stanford, Oregon State and Washington State could join the Mountain West. It would be a drop down, but it is better than being Independent. Only Notre Dame can thrive as an Independent.

by Anonymousreply 4August 4, 2023 10:35 PM

Stanford has literally over a billion dollars in the bank. They could certainly wait it out before the invitation for B1G. Cal can't. Either way, Stanford and Cal have to begin cutting sports to survive. There are now rumors that OSU and WSU are making overtures to Big 10.

by Anonymousreply 5August 4, 2023 10:41 PM

R4, the problem with the ACC isn't just the exit fee, it's that if they leave without getting out of their Grant of Rights media contract, all the media money they'd make in their new conference would go back to the ACC until that contract expired. When the ACC signed their deal they were somewhat desperate and trying to keep it together after Maryland had decided to leave. At the time, the numbers from the deal weren't outstanding, but not terrible, and it deal offered the member schools stability. But the GOR agreement is until 2036 - an insanely long time. At the time it was signed, no one could foresee all the realignment, infusion of money, court decisions, and mega media deals that would upend college football. So the ACC schools are essentially stuck (the GOR is viewed by many as pretty ironclad) unless they get enough schools to vote to dissolve the conference and all the members can then decide what they want to do. But a certain percentage of schools need to agree and the "lesser" ACC schools probably don't want that to happen. It's a lot going on.

by Anonymousreply 6August 4, 2023 10:47 PM

I highly doubt the Big 10 would want Wash St. and Oregon State. It really sucks for those schools to be essentially leftovers.

Stanford can do what it wants, they can probably weather a storm as an independent - but I do think people tend to overstate the wealth aspect. Endowment money doesn't just automatically go to fund the athletic department. The athletic department has some of its own money, but not endless amounts. Granted I think Stanford could probably do some targeted fund raising and massively increase the athletic department reserves if it wanted.

I have no idea what Cal does. A great academic jewel, but academics aren't driving this. And they're sort of f'd (I think) in terms of money.

by Anonymousreply 7August 4, 2023 10:52 PM

B1G doesn't want OSU and WSU but Big 12 might. They just announced that no only Arizona but ASU and Utah will likely be joining.

As far as Stanford's endowment, they have a ton of athletic money. Enough to ride out the storm. Cal has none. They are so deeply in debt that even a B1G wouldn't save them. In a sense, Cal might also have started matriculating students who don't place as great an emphasis on viewing sports as previous generations. The mid Majors are funded by student fees, which is completely wrong, IMO.

by Anonymousreply 8August 4, 2023 11:15 PM

Didn’t Stanford already cut a lot of its athletic programs?

by Anonymousreply 9August 4, 2023 11:18 PM

Big East Smalls.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10August 4, 2023 11:22 PM

R8, I didn't know that Stanford's athletic-specific endowment was already that developed. I've heard a fair amount of people opine that "Stanford has a $40 billion (general) endowment so everything will automatically be okay for athletics" without knowing how general endowment money is spend and how it needs to be approved.

by Anonymousreply 11August 4, 2023 11:23 PM

Stanford and Cal Athletics’ were/are both in better financial shape than UCLA’s…it got lucky only because USC dragged the Bruins over the line due to the value of the LA television market.

The B1G presidents will readily take both Bay Area schools based on the sports/academics combo (each would be the top-rated academic uni among their respective private / public cohort). The issue: the B1G athletic directors don’t won’t to spread the $ too thin…let’s be clear, Stanford and Cal are much more valuable than any or all of Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska. Purdue, Iowa…

As for any sport other than fb and bb: Stanford is the #1 university for “Olympic” sports, and Cal is #4…better than ANY B1G school. Ucla and USC are #s 2 and 3.

by Anonymousreply 12August 5, 2023 12:08 AM

"let’s be clear, Stanford and Cal are much more valuable than any or all of Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska. Purdue, Iowa…

As for any sport other than fb and bb: Stanford is the #1 university for “Olympic” sports, and Cal is #4…better than ANY B1G school. Ucla and USC are #s 2 and 3."

The first point may be absolutely true. I wouldn't argue for a second. But it really doesn't matter right now. They're not members, the other schools are, and no major conference has ever kicked out schools (yet?). And the general "rule" for new members is whether they can increase the media payout enough to not decrease the shares to the member schools. I don't think Stanford and Cal can - but we can't know until the next round of media rights negotiations. So until 2030, they'd have to settle for reduced share like Oregon and Washington. It's sort of structurally unfair - established conference members like Purdue or Northwestern don't have to ever prove that they can increase value because they were there when the original value was determined and were already members. To be clear, I think Stanford and Cal would be great additions.

The second point is a non-starter. It maybe should matter, but it simply doesn't - at all. Olympic sports, excellence in Olympic sports is driving none of this.

by Anonymousreply 13August 5, 2023 12:37 AM

"As for any sport other than fb and bb: Stanford is the #1 university for “Olympic” sports, and Cal is #4…better than ANY B1G school. Ucla and USC are #s 2 and 3."

In other words, Cal is #4 in all the sports that no one cares about.

by Anonymousreply 14August 5, 2023 12:38 AM

Cal's books are cooked better than a Christmas goose. Christ, get it?

by Anonymousreply 15August 5, 2023 12:44 AM

R13. Good pints, fair statements.

R14 and R15…not so much.

by Anonymousreply 16August 5, 2023 12:47 AM

*points. and pints!

by Anonymousreply 17August 5, 2023 12:47 AM

Thanks R6. I know they kept talking about media rights but they never seem to explain it when the subject of schools leaving the ACC comes up.

by Anonymousreply 18August 5, 2023 12:49 AM

Well sorry R16, but being #4 in non-revenue sports will not be an invitation getter to the B1G.

by Anonymousreply 19August 5, 2023 12:53 AM

And that's unfortunately the reality. Pac whatever is dead. Stanford can continue. Cal can't. If even the Big 12 is not looking at them, being mid Major would be almost as bad as simply closing up shop.

by Anonymousreply 20August 5, 2023 12:56 AM

It's official - Arizona, Arizona State, and Utah to the Big 12. There's no hope for the PAC-X. Stanford, Cal, Oregon State, and Wash State is all that's left.

by Anonymousreply 21August 5, 2023 3:26 AM

[quote] is

by Anonymousreply 22August 5, 2023 3:33 AM

A great overview on the demise on the Pac.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 23August 5, 2023 5:42 AM

Now we're really talking. Cal and Stanford are trying to get into the ACC. They were laughing about the Pac teams travel in the B1G but this proposal is obviously way worse. And speaking of laughing, USC didn't want Oregon in the B1G because they wanted football recruiting to themselves. Well guess what? Four star Cornerback Dakoda Fields flipped from USC to Oregon.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 24August 8, 2023 8:31 PM

Nice knowing you, Pac 12

by Anonymousreply 25August 8, 2023 8:37 PM

r12 "Stanford and Cal Athletics’ were/are both in better financial shape than UCLA’s…it got lucky only because USC dragged the Bruins over the line due to the value of the LA television market. "


by Anonymousreply 26August 8, 2023 9:06 PM


Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27August 8, 2023 9:19 PM

R26, yet the Bay Area television market obviously meant nothing to the B1G.

by Anonymousreply 28August 8, 2023 9:20 PM

Much of UCLA's debt was incurred because of the withdrawal of UnderArmor. But UA paid over R67.5 to UCLA to get out of their contract, something they might regret as the Bruins head over to the B1G.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 29August 8, 2023 9:24 PM

"[R26], yet the Bay Area television market obviously meant nothing to the B1G."

It doesn't mean nothing, but when running the numbers, it's not as easy anymore as when Rutgers and Maryland were added and the Big Ten believed it was SO important to break into the NYC and DC media markets - based on traditional "media market" criteria like overall population and number of cable subscribers. That still does matter, but now there's this big component of an added school being a "brand" - do people actually follow the school - positively or negatively (like how people will hate watch Alabama or ND) and will they turn into watch. And also, if you're a late entrant to a conference, then even with a big media market and a decent fan base, it's a matter of whether a school increase the portion that a tv channel or cable network will pay out so that the remaining members don't have to take a decrease in their cut. There's only so many schools like that. In retrospect adding Rutgers to gain the NYC media market was laughable since people in NYC area generally don't care about Rutgers (no shade to Rutgers) There's probably way more casual Michigan or Penn State fans in NYC metro than Rutgers.

by Anonymousreply 30August 8, 2023 9:47 PM

Actually what it means is that so few people in the Bay Area watch Cal and/or Stanford football that it's not worth their time.

by Anonymousreply 31August 8, 2023 9:50 PM

Who the fuck watches Rutgers or Maryland

by Anonymousreply 32August 8, 2023 9:51 PM

They’re also not at the bottom, with one compilation of 2022 football viewership data listing Cal as the 45th most-watched program in the nation and Stanford 47th. That still ranked ahead of 16 Power Five conference teams (20 if you count the 2023 Big 12 newcomers).

by Anonymousreply 33August 8, 2023 9:54 PM

FWIW…accept or reject

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 34August 8, 2023 9:55 PM

The Big Ten loves to talk up it's academic bona fides. And, obviously, Stanford and Cal are academic jewels. But, they really don't move the needle much athletically. Big Ten might take them at a reduced share until the next media contract in 2030 (I think).

by Anonymousreply 35August 8, 2023 9:58 PM

The real problem is threefold for both schools:: the content purchasers Fox, ESPN, etc. don’t want to shell out more cash that would allow them an easy path to a Power 5 safe landing; the B1G presidents would love to have them, the athletic depts. less so ($): and the faculty at each school look down on football as an institutional matter (alumni blow Joe or hot and cold, depending on their team’s success). Both Cal and Stanford have lousy fb and bb programs at exactly the worst time for the situation they find themselves in.

by Anonymousreply 36August 8, 2023 10:02 PM

R35 they would both take that deal…but see above.

by Anonymousreply 37August 8, 2023 10:02 PM

"Year after year, the Pac-4 provides some of the athletic action you would expect to see from an athletic conference. While our games might not be on TV, you can enjoy them in person at any one of our four convenient locations."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 38August 8, 2023 10:03 PM

This is a big fuck-you to Big 10 fans. I don’t have anything against the east coast or west coast schools, but the Big 10 has celebrated rivalries that go back years. The Big 10 schools were almost all within driving distance of one another (OK, long drives in some instances). It’s part of growing up or going to school in the Midwest. Who gives a shit about an Ohio State vs the Oregon Ducks football game? There will be 18 schools in the Big 10 by 2025. I’m pissed and I went to the one Big 10 school that never had championship football or basketball teams.

by Anonymousreply 39August 8, 2023 11:19 PM

Which one —?

by Anonymousreply 40August 8, 2023 11:40 PM

Which school is that R39? Only Rutgers and Nebraska have never won a Big 10 championship in football or basketball. But Nebraska won multiple national and conference football championships when they were in the Big 6/8/12 before joining the Big 10.

So Rutgers?

by Anonymousreply 41August 8, 2023 11:49 PM


by Anonymousreply 42August 9, 2023 6:25 PM

I wish Missouri was in the B1G rather than the SEC. Money definitely talked in Missouri’s decision, but it is a more natural fit with the B1G schools.

by Anonymousreply 43August 9, 2023 7:54 PM

Missouri was devastated when the B1G invited Nebraska instead of them.

by Anonymousreply 44August 9, 2023 11:48 PM

and look at the state of the University of Nebraska's football program...

by Anonymousreply 45August 9, 2023 11:54 PM

Mizzou is no looker itself. How many national titles has it won in any sport?!

by Anonymousreply 46August 9, 2023 11:57 PM

ACC looks like they may not have the votes to admit Cal and Stanford. A very astute question is why ND wants those two in the ACC so badly when they're only partial members. If the conference is so great, why don't they go all in. I think ACC is planning on another meeting with a vote tonight and that will be the final nail in this coffin.

by Anonymousreply 47August 10, 2023 7:09 PM

Money ruins everything.

by Anonymousreply 48August 11, 2023 3:19 AM

WtF re Chapel Hill?! Is UNC afraid of have two better universities come along for the ride? At least UVA knows how their bread is buttered.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 49August 11, 2023 11:02 PM

It's said that the Yes votes, except for ND were quite iffy. What is really ironic is that one of the iffy Yes votes was from VT whose president and wife are both Cal grads.

The Pac 4 has hired Oliver Luck to try to get them out of this.

It Won't Work

by Anonymousreply 50August 12, 2023 2:13 AM


by Anonymousreply 51August 12, 2023 2:20 AM

Cal, Stanford and SMU to ACC. They will receive a rate of 30%! Then again, Stanford was begging to be let in at 0%. Stanford can handle it, Cal likely can't. The 30% rate will go for 7 years and if they can last, by year 8 they go to 70%. The current deal is said to be $15 million less per year than what they made in the Pac. Of course, the saddest are OSU and WSU who are left behind. Smart asses are suggesting they join the Mountain West and call themselves Broke Pac Mountain.

by Anonymousreply 52September 2, 2023 9:13 PM

I saw SMU flexed their donor money and won't be getting any media money for 7 years!? They must REALLY want to be part of a major conference again.

by Anonymousreply 53September 2, 2023 10:11 PM

SMU supporters, alumni and students are wealthy as hell. The school is located in the most affluent zip code in Texas.

If I was a resourceful young co-ed, it would be the first college I thought of to find a husband.

by Anonymousreply 54September 2, 2023 10:36 PM

I get, that R54. It's not that I'm surprised they can do it; plenty of wealthy schools COULD. But, I'm still surprised that they would take nothing. Via their old conference they probably got something like $7 million per year, which is massively below the ACC's per school payout. You'd think they'd want something just as a sign of respect (like an equivalent 7 million), but they said from the get go they'd take nothing and be happy with it, so if I'm the ACC, I guess I'm not going to fight that. Cal may be fucked with their small payout in the beginning.

by Anonymousreply 55September 2, 2023 10:44 PM

SMU posted a 49–9–1 record from 1980 to 1984. They were in the national conversation for the title of "national champion" during these years, when they played in the Southwest Conference, where they played Texas, Texas A&M and Arkansas annually.

SMU's wealthy donors paid football recruits money under the table so they would sign with SMU. These players received payments during their entire SMU careers. It was well-known, and the University tried to end the practice, but the donors kept paying the players. It resulted in the death penalty for football for a couple of years.

The Southwest Conference folded and SMU played in the WAC and Conference USA, followed by the American Conference. This opportunity to join the ACC may return them to past football glory. That's why they accepted the bid with no payment asked.

by Anonymousreply 56September 2, 2023 11:04 PM

The SWC was so intense and SO regional. Wasn't every school in Texas except Arkansas?

by Anonymousreply 57September 2, 2023 11:13 PM

Yes, R57.

Baylor University, Rice University, Southern Methodist University, Texas A&M University, Texas Christian University, Texas Tech University, University of Houston, University of Arkansas and University of Texas at Austin

I once went to the annual Texas-Texas A&M game when they were still in the SWC. It was crazy fun, and school spirit on both sides was through the roof. Texas won that game in Austin, so the students partied until daybreak.

by Anonymousreply 58September 2, 2023 11:26 PM

I wonder what sort of modern day media deal the old SWC could obtain. Like if it existed in 2023, what would the payout per school be. Having Texas and TAMU automatically gets a decent baseline amount, I'd think. Not like the SEC and Big 10, but definitely more than the non-power conferences like the AAC or Mountain West. Close to the ACC and future Big 12? I really wonder.

by Anonymousreply 59September 3, 2023 12:39 AM

It just so unfortunate that the old Pac 8/10/12 conference is just going to disappear - this will be a good last year for it: Oregon, Colorado, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, USC and UCLA could all be top ten teams by the end of the year (I mean they all have that potential -they'll beat each other so they won't all be in the Top Twenty by the end of the season).

by Anonymousreply 60September 3, 2023 1:02 AM

It's unfortunate generally, but it's massively unfortunate for Washington State and Oregon State, the only ones truly left behind and whose media money will go from 30+ million (under the old Pac-12 deal, not necessarily what they would have got if the PAC stayed together) to 6 or 7 million- assuming they join the WAC or Mountain West, which seems the most likely result.

by Anonymousreply 61September 3, 2023 1:07 AM

Girls, girls

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 62September 3, 2023 1:09 AM

Dude at R62 is ready to be cast in the reboot of Pose.

"The category is jock realness. The swagger, the muscles, the tight bottoms. Work it out, gurl!!

by Anonymousreply 63September 3, 2023 1:11 AM

Oregon State really hates. They just finished a huge stadium renovation and will now take a big cut in revenue.

by Anonymousreply 64September 3, 2023 4:33 AM

Eight PAC-12 teams in the top 25!

by Anonymousreply 65September 10, 2023 9:56 PM

R39, totally agree (I went to Wisconsin)

by Anonymousreply 66September 10, 2023 10:18 PM

They're going out with a bang before their conference disintegrates, R65.

by Anonymousreply 67September 11, 2023 12:10 AM

It's a real shame, given their relative success the past couple of seasons. This year was supposed to be the "crowning achievement", given the predicted success of the football teams.

Guaranteed, the Universities have underestimated the cost of travel sending all their teams across the country and the amount of study time they are taking away from all the athletes. If there's a plane crash and an entire team is wiped out, it will freeze college football while the Universities review their priorities.

by Anonymousreply 68September 11, 2023 12:25 AM

Stanford and Cal are total shit. Furd should have gone home at halftime.

by Anonymousreply 69September 11, 2023 12:26 AM

R68 what are you gibbering on about? If you are trying to comment in the Pac-12 the. Know it has not broken up yet…and in any event it’s football teams have been traveling across the country for over 100 years.

by Anonymousreply 70September 11, 2023 12:28 AM

Well, Cal at least should have beaten Auburn…🫨

Cal and The Farm can look forward to making the ACC a quality academic conference…we both add luster in that regard. The rest of the ACC will be bragging about Nobel laureates before you know it ;)

by Anonymousreply 71September 11, 2023 12:32 AM

I get it's a nice-sounding thing to be in a good academic conference but I really don't see why it matters. It's just an association of schools to compete in sports. Academic institutions are elite on their own merits and remain so no matter the conference. Rice is Conference USA with few academic peers; Johns Hopkins is in some random DIII conference. Stanford in the ACC isn't going to raise Clemson's academic profile.

by Anonymousreply 72September 11, 2023 3:39 AM

Johns Hopkins is in the Centennial Conference, along with academic powerhouses Swarthmore, Haverford and Bryn Mawr, not just a random conference.

by Anonymousreply 73September 11, 2023 4:32 AM

I'm pretty sure R71 was joking. But for desperate Cal fans, maybe not.

by Anonymousreply 74September 11, 2023 4:38 AM

Just pretty sure?

by Anonymousreply 75September 11, 2023 10:18 AM

The ACC already has Duke, Virginia and UNC, not exactly scrubs when it comes to academics.

by Anonymousreply 76September 11, 2023 2:07 PM

Yet not up to the new standard.

by Anonymousreply 77September 11, 2023 2:28 PM

Breaking up the Pac (insert your number here) is bullshit, and indicative of the kind of change that makes life less interesting. I go back more than 60 years to the AAWU, then Pac 6, then Pact 8 -10 - 12...

There are historic rivalries, geography/history/culture that are wasted in the realignments - much more than football and basketball the Pac 12 has been the hothouse for Olympic sports - track and field, swimming. volleyball etc. League competition (and the recruitment of top athletes in these sports) will diminish, I think. There's a reason that the two top colleges with national championships in all sports are Stanford and UCLA.

This year the fact that so many of the Pac 12 teams are ranked will (finally) mean that one or two of the teams could make the championship round - SEC has benefited for years by beating each other and scoring on the metrics because so many SEC teams are highly ranked. They are highly ranked because they are highly ranked. This year a couple teams could beat up on the on the other Pac 12 teams make the finals: right now I'm thinking USC (fuck them) and Washington could both make the championship. I think Colorado's bubble will burst at some time.

Oh course, Go Bruins, I always have hopes for UCLA.

by Anonymousreply 78September 11, 2023 2:41 PM

You understate the case. The top four in total championships in all sports are Stanford, UCLA, USC and Cal.

By the way …you might display a bit of shame knowing that, as to realignment, Stanford was more loyal to the UC system than your own alma mater. You may hate USC but they got you into the Big 10. Yet what’s done is done..,the whole universe of college sports is changed now and forever. And not for the greater good.

by Anonymousreply 79September 11, 2023 3:11 PM

R79 Mostly true... USC's football got UCLA in the BIG, yep. But UCLA's basketball got USC into the BIG .... a case could be made.

by Anonymousreply 80September 11, 2023 3:25 PM

Alabama looked weak against Texas. Could it be the end of the Saban dynasty?

by Anonymousreply 81September 11, 2023 3:25 PM

None of this is basketball based, R80. Of course UCLA is basketball royalty, but they'd never be taken on that basis. It's just a nice bonus. The B1G wanted USC once it expressed interest and UCLA came along for the ride. It's a great school, good at many sports, but was not a primary target.

by Anonymousreply 82September 11, 2023 3:30 PM

Oh that's such shit R79. Stanford was only more loyal to the Pac because there had no interest anywhere. You think if B1G made the same offer that they did to USC and UCLA, they wouldn't have bolted immediately. Same with Cal. The Pac was already a dying conference and the administration at the NorCal schools were simply fools to think otherwise. The past months of desperately trying to be accepted by any conference shows a great deal of how totally incompetent they are. If it is football based, both Stanford and Cal have way less bargaining power than even UCLA. And add to the fact that so many people in conferences like ACC and Big12 did not want them because they represent "woke" California politics.

by Anonymousreply 83September 11, 2023 5:29 PM

You type like a cut and paste from Reddit. I’ll take exception to your entire post.

And, in my family, I can count seven UClA degrees among them. They all are more intelligent than you, based on just that one post.

by Anonymousreply 84September 11, 2023 5:35 PM


corrected before you bitch again

by Anonymousreply 85September 11, 2023 5:36 PM

A real problem is that the conference realignments, which completely favor football and to a way lesser extent, mens basketball, is that it isn't simply about NIL, it's a complete cultural shift. I honestly don't think that Cal can do it and I don't know if Stanford wants to do it. The Cardinal has enough money but their admissions and transfer procedures are now suggesting that they will forever be a doormat. Cal will be getting new leadership soon but they don't have that monetary nest egg as Palo Alto. So you have a Lucy and Jessie situation.

by Anonymousreply 86September 11, 2023 5:59 PM

Being that Cal and Stanford are entering ACC at a paltry 30% (and better than Stanford who was proposing to enter FREE), I wonder if they start cutting sports at Cal. UCLA has to pay Cal as well but it's still not close to what they would have made in the Pac.

by Anonymousreply 87September 11, 2023 6:01 PM

R83 Give it a rest. "Woke" isn't a real thing, in anything other than rightwing focus-group BS, much less sports.

c.f. Florida: where woke has gone to die and sink its governor into irrelevancy.

by Anonymousreply 88September 11, 2023 6:18 PM

R88, did I say that? Or did I say that the fan base said it? That was the reality on all the message boards. Being that it is a football centric argument, it isn't surprising.

by Anonymousreply 89September 11, 2023 6:21 PM

Stanford never proposed entering for free. As for “institutional” interest in sports, Stanford and Cal are aligned—as much as they each would like to succeed in the two revenue sports, their appetite for compromise is almost nil compare to SC and Ucla. If they could find a way to maintain their non-revenue Olympic sports without fb and bb, they would. Each of them has alumni fully invested in certain sports historically important to each, but that only goes so far. And here they are, in the ACC, for the foreseeable future. As a Norte Californio, I can at least take pride in the effort to maintain integrity more than those Southern schools.

by Anonymousreply 90September 11, 2023 6:22 PM

Current locker room footage, please

by Anonymousreply 91September 11, 2023 6:26 PM

Well, Stanford entering for free was reported by various groups. It might have been a pile on.

"According to the Associated Press, Stanford informed the remaining Pac-4 schools that they’re desperate to leave for the ACC. How desperate?

Desperate enough that they’re essentially willing to join the conference for free. Literally. For free."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 92September 11, 2023 6:28 PM

You are very trusting of random websites…too trusting. Really

by Anonymousreply 93September 11, 2023 6:30 PM

When did AP become a random website?

by Anonymousreply 94September 11, 2023 6:32 PM

Please link to an AP story confirming Stanford told the ACC that it would join for free for any length of time. TIA

by Anonymousreply 95September 11, 2023 6:34 PM

SI said it as well but since Stanford and Cal joined at 30% for 7 years, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 96September 11, 2023 6:35 PM

[quote]Who gives a shit about an Ohio State vs the Oregon Ducks football game?

Two top ten football teams will get much more care than OSU vs the joke that is Rutgers.

by Anonymousreply 97September 11, 2023 6:37 PM

"Leaders from Stanford, California, Oregon State and Washington State spoke Thursday, and Stanford told its colleagues it had informed the ACC that it would be open to joining the conference at greatly reduced or even no media rights payout for several years, a person familiar with the discussions told The Associated Press."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 98September 11, 2023 6:38 PM

Nowhere in that article does it confirm Stanford offered to join for free.

Reading is fundamental.

by Anonymousreply 99September 11, 2023 6:38 PM

SMU said they would take no tv money for 9 years, not Stanford.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 100September 11, 2023 6:42 PM

OSU played at Cal and it looked like a home game. That's one of the reasons Cal was not invited to the Big Ten....sparse support.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 101September 11, 2023 6:44 PM

What does "Stanford told its colleagues it had informed the ACC that it would be open to joining the conference at greatly reduced or even no media rights payout for several years" mean?

by Anonymousreply 102September 11, 2023 7:06 PM

It means you linked to an article quoting an anonymous source, unconfirmed in the entire month-long process that followed your outdated news story. Seriously, please.

by Anonymousreply 103September 11, 2023 7:23 PM

Stanford would never have done it for free.

by Anonymousreply 104September 11, 2023 7:39 PM

It means nothing , because it was SMU, not Stanford, R102

by Anonymousreply 105September 11, 2023 8:31 PM

SMU is actually entering for free - for seven years - which is just crazy. People say SMU can afford it due to the rich boosters, but you'd think you'd want something as a show of respect.

by Anonymousreply 106September 11, 2023 9:36 PM

The ACC is more respected than the AAC. They were looking for any opportunity to get into a Power 5 conference. I'm really surprised the Big 12 didn't snatch them up, the school is not much different than TCU. They had major success in the old Southwest Conference.

by Anonymousreply 107September 12, 2023 12:27 AM

R103, you asked for attribution and I gave it. The fact that you can't accept it or don't want to accept it is your problem.

by Anonymousreply 108September 12, 2023 12:33 AM

Blah blah —there’s no verifiable source and no other reference to your assertion anywhere blah blah

by Anonymousreply 109September 12, 2023 1:10 AM

R109 sounds insufferable.

by Anonymousreply 110September 12, 2023 9:28 PM

Already an upset today with KSU going down.. FSU should have joined them.

by Anonymousreply 111September 16, 2023 8:03 PM
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!