If Stanford and Cal end up joining the ACC, would it be a missed opportunity for the B1G

Let them in if only for the opportunity to watch M play from the shade of the eucalyptus trees on the golden grass hill above Cal’s stadium with that expansive Bay Area backdrop. The Golden Gate is a blessed piece of earth 

I thought this had been snuffed out over the recent weeks and the ACC didn't get the votes they needed?

While I also think the distance thing is ridiculous it's pretty much what USC and UCLA are committing to with the B1G but only producing a better product that many people will watch. Not sure Cal vs Syracuse or Stanford vs Virginia is bringing the masses.

Truth is, Stanford and Cal were always hoping to be someone's coattail rider and slip in as a referendum on a package deal. As they try to market themselves as a stand alone product, they're not as appealing even if academics are top notch. The academic cache went out the window long ago. Not sure what the ACC would be gaining here and someone should tell them more is not always better cough, cough, Rutgers --- Maryland --- Nebraska, cough, cough

Again with this?

Meh. Could care less about the academics. Also could care less about adding west coast Rutgers and Maryland 

No

Stanford and Cal are excellent fits for the BigTen.

They also serve to isolate and pressure ND to join, for those who feel that that is financially desirable, thereby paying for any financial shortcomings in short term by adding those two schools. 

If the goal of this expansion was to make the Big Ten the best all-around conference in the country, with considering both academics and athletics, then yes, not inviting Stanford or Cal would be the kind of decision that gets entire administrations fired. Those are two of the best schools in the country, regardless of whether they are public or private.

But that’s not what the expansion is about. They don’t add anything of value, at least in terms of value that the TV networks are looking for. These are football decisions, and that’s all they are ever going to do. So with that, schools like Stanford and Cal have no leverage.

Honestly, I don’t blame the ACC not wanting them. Even if those two schools agree to take no share in the network revenue for an extended period of time, there’s still have to be incurred costs for all these Atlantic – based schools to be constantly traveling to the West Coast for games. Especially your non-revenue sports who are going to be seeing little to nothing of this added revenue. If I am the A.D. of Boston College or UNC, the last thing I want is every coach in my department kicking down my door about this. Because those coaches and their players? The women’s field hockey and soccer teams? The men’s track and field and tennis teams? Those are the ones who are all going to get fucked over. And on top of that, now you have two schools that are both elite in Olympic sports who can come in and invade your recruiting footprint. They’re all being subjected to changes made specifically for football, and the powers that be could not care less. 

I know a lot of people hate Chip Kelly, but I didn’t think he was too far off in recommending that these changes should just be affecting football alignment.

We're at the point where there should be TV conferences for football/basketball, and then different conferences for all the non-revenue sports.  (So, for example, keep the PAC-12 together for non-revenue sports, and then football/basketball just go wherever makes the most financial sense).  It's crazy that football is dragging along all the other sports into situations that are totally impractical for them.

Yes

They're just nicer sounding Rutgers. It's just vanity to add them. The equation is very different for the ACC who needs to think of "what happens when/if FSU/Clemson bolt".

But remember in the conference sweepstakes you're only worth as much as your average TV earnings per team and I don't see how Cal or Stanford are net benefits there. Even when Stanford was really good they couldn't really muster much excitement outside their alumni community (and not even unreservedly within that).

For people who grew up in the Southern/Midwestern nexus of college athletics it's very difficult to grasp, but for me as someone who grew up outside of this country it's very easy to grasp, that there's a huge % in those universities who want nothing to do with the semi-pro sports that CFB and CBB have become.

I had heard Stanford approached the ACC and essentially said.. “we’ll join for free”.. and the ACC said no.  

With an endowment like Stanford’s, I believe it.

Michigan would never go for it. Stanford and Cal are seen as academic competitors that would take recruits away from us. No way in hell Michigan agrees to this.

If Stanford would bring Notre Dame into the conference, it would be a great move 

Just Stanford and Cal?  No 

Stanford offers both academic prestige and dominance in a number of nonrevenue sports while sometimes competitive with football and basketball.  It would be a good pairing with Notre Dame.

I'm not sure what Cal adds to an athletic conference.

No. Those programs bring no value in revenue sports. 

Yes it would be a missed opportunity by any measure not of the immediate $$$$ based criteria.  Unfortunately we will rue the day because short-termism rules the day.

Who cares about the academics of your conference? Does it help Michigan in any way if suddenly Minnesota = Harvard academically? Does anyone give a rat's ass?

Heck no.

And the ACC shouldn't grab them either. Not unless they did this (which I haven't heard anyone mention).

The ACC should try to grab Cal and Stanford and FB only schools and bring UCONN in with the "affiliate" deal that ND gets.

That gives the ACC 16 teams + 2 affiliates for Football.

Then that gives them their 14 + ND + UCONN for basketball and all other sports.

And to get to 18...I would add Villanova and Georgetown. 

Now they have 18. But in FB it's Cal/Stanford...in everything else it's Villanoca and Georgetown. 

Yes. The B18G should add Cal and Stanford as a long-term strategy. The value they bring for research and funding is immense and irreplaceable, regardless of what plusses and minuses may accrue on the field and court. It will also make scheduling much easier, especially for the non-revenue sports. It would be a major loss if the ACC gets them.

The B1G didn't invite them, then the Big12 invited near everybody but them, and now the ACC has to be dragged into a conversation with them. I would call that a passed opportunity, more than a missed one. 

Yes, it would be a missed opportunity.  This might in a very minor way - reflect on academic alignment.  And, perhaps I am way off in this assumption - but, weren’t colleges and universities created to advance thought?

To me, the only reason they are a take is to ease travel costs. 

I think they may be a better fit for the ACC. Stanford is good at lots of sports not widely played or highly competitive in the B1G. I mean, does Michigan or the conference even have men's water polo or rowing? 

There's also the matter of the market saying the revenue wouldn't be there. I can see how this could be a mistake as both schools have had moderate to great success in the last 20 years but don't seem to have the eyeballs. To me, this is in part because they are on the west coast and often have games at the same time as prime time B1G or after when eastern and midwesterners are going to bed.

I believe this could change with more west coast schools because it may bring some of these fans to the western school games. We know UM/Iowa/etc. fans will travel to or watch themselves against Oregon or Washington. I think they would do the same with Cal and Stanford but have no idea if it would be enough to embiggen the pie for everyone. If they take a small share in the B1G, it may just put them further behind in terms of coaching and NIL pools.

Just more teams to poach from the ACC....but it'll cost more.

Nah. Stanford would have been a decent add, thanks to its all-around game and sterling reputation. It’s also a fairly significant brand. But Cal brings nothing. And both have lousy football programs with few loyal fans. I’d want Stanford only if paired with Notre Dame. 

If I were a voting member of the B18, I would yes on adding Cal and Stanford.

1. Oregon and UDub already set the precedent of taking a less than full revenue share as the price of admission. Cal and Stanford would take still less to join, leaving the existing members at roughly the same revenue share.
2. Cal and Stanford are excellent academic and research matches for the B18.
3. Adding Cal and Stanford makes tremendous sense for scheduling.
4. Cal (to a degree) and Stanford (without question) bring outstanding non-revenue sports programs to the conference.
5. Contrary to some confused statements above, Cal and Stanford bring the sixth-largest television market in the United States, which unquestionably brings value to the B18's current media partners not just for the Cal and Stanford audiences, but also for the alumni of the other B18 schools that live and work in the Bay Area, including the alumni of schools like USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, OSU, Purdue, Penn State, and, yes, Michigan.
6. Significantly, Cal and Stanford also bring a local audience of the most significant non-traditional media providers anywhere in the world, including Facebook, Google, Netflix, YouTube, and Apple. And Cal and Stanford supply a disproportionate number of the decision-making executives at those companies (to be fair, along with schools like USC, UCLA, and Michigan).

I admit I was already sold because I like the idea of the Big-10-18-20 being a conference of academic and research powerhouses, in contrast to the other college athletic conferences. But I think point #6 above gets overlooked in this discussion. Apple TV+ was reportedly offering the PAC $25 million to $30 million per school for the rights to air their games. The PAC may be gone, but Apple isn't going anywhere. Apple and the other streaming services will continue to seek to add unique content in an effort to position themselves as eventual victors in the streaming service blood-letting that is to come. And Apple has the deepest pockets (with Amazon and Disney perhaps being their only serious rivals in that regard); they're not going to be out-bid.

Not least, with 20 schools coast-to-coast and in roughly 10 out of 15 of the largest television media markets in the United States (depending on who's counting)--including adding a top-ten market in the Bay Area--the addition of Cal and Stanford positions the B20 very powerfully as a long-term attractive media buy for any future content providers, whether traditional or new media.

TL;DR-- adding Cal and Stanford will make long-term financial sense for the B20. And they're already good fits academically and in overall athletics. Just do it.

I agree.

They are two of the best name brands in academics, and, at some point, Cal will get athletics figured out. Stanford is good at lots of things.

I think it would position the Big Ten beautifully. 

But I realize it's not gonna happen.