[chrisk]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...st-power-4

A total of 10 P4 games will be required.

Because the conference has 17 teams, one team each year will be limited to 8 conference games plus 2 P4 games.

Stanford still needs a 10th P4 game for 2026. Will it be Notre Dame?

[chrisk]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...st-power-4

A total of 10 P4 games will be required.

Because the conference has 17 teams, one team each year will be limited to 8 conference games plus 2 P4 games.

Stanford still needs a 10th P4 game for 2026. Will it be Notre Dame?

[Spiny_Norman]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...st-power-4

A total of 10 P4 games will be required.

Because the conference has 17 teams, one team each year will be limited to 8 conference games plus 2 P4 games.

Stanford still needs a 10th P4 game for 2026.  Will it be Notre Dame?

Stanford could add a non-conference game against an ACC team that also needs a 10th P4 opponent. Virginia and NC State played each other in a non-conference game a few weeks ago.

[Spiny_Norman]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...st-power-4

A total of 10 P4 games will be required.

Because the conference has 17 teams, one team each year will be limited to 8 conference games plus 2 P4 games.

Stanford still needs a 10th P4 game for 2026.  Will it be Notre Dame?

Stanford could add a non-conference game against an ACC team that also needs a 10th P4 opponent. Virginia and NC State played each other in a non-conference game a few weeks ago.

[SkiBum80]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...st-power-4

A total of 10 P4 games will be required.

Because the conference has 17 teams, one team each year will be limited to 8 conference games plus 2 P4 games.

Stanford still needs a 10th P4 game for 2026.  Will it be Notre Dame?

Stanford could add a non-conference game against an ACC team that also needs a 10th P4 opponent. Virginia and NC State played each other in a non-conference game a few weeks ago.

And to make it more weird, I think I read elsewhere that if we added a non-conference game against an ACC team, to meet our 10 P4 games requirement, that ACC game won't count in the ACC standings. So an (admittedly fanciful) conjecture: add FlaSt or Clemson, beat them! but it doesn't count in ACC.

[SkiBum80]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...st-power-4

A total of 10 P4 games will be required.

Because the conference has 17 teams, one team each year will be limited to 8 conference games plus 2 P4 games.

Stanford still needs a 10th P4 game for 2026.  Will it be Notre Dame?

Stanford could add a non-conference game against an ACC team that also needs a 10th P4 opponent. Virginia and NC State played each other in a non-conference game a few weeks ago.

And to make it more weird, I think I read elsewhere that if we added a non-conference game against an ACC team, to meet our 10 P4 games requirement, that ACC game won't count in the ACC standings. So an (admittedly fanciful) conjecture: add FlaSt or Clemson, beat them! but it doesn't count in ACC.

[cctop]

I'm glad the conferences seem to be standardizing the number of conference games.

I'm still salty about the SEC playing only 8 conference games (and cupcake games late in the season) during our good run 2010-2016.

[cctop]

I'm glad the conferences seem to be standardizing the number of conference games.

I'm still salty about the SEC playing only 8 conference games (and cupcake games late in the season) during our good run 2010-2016.

[Giants]

I'm glad the conferences seem to be standardizing the number of conference games.

I'm still salty about the SEC playing only 8 conference games (and cupcake games late in the season) during our good run 2010-2016.

As opposed to the old Pac12 that played their cupcake game(s) in September.  

The problem wasn’t the way the SEC scheduled their games. The problem was the PAC’s insistence on not scheduling for success.  For example, scheduling road games followed another road game on Thursday or Friday, not permitting the scheduling of cupcakes after September, scheduling teams to go through a grinder of back to back to back games v. premier programs, etc, etc.

The PAC12 had idiots at the controls.  The SEC had guys who were laser focused on taking advantage of every edge available.

[Giants]

I'm glad the conferences seem to be standardizing the number of conference games.

I'm still salty about the SEC playing only 8 conference games (and cupcake games late in the season) during our good run 2010-2016.

As opposed to the old Pac12 that played their cupcake game(s) in September.  

The problem wasn’t the way the SEC scheduled their games. The problem was the PAC’s insistence on not scheduling for success.  For example, scheduling road games followed another road game on Thursday or Friday, not permitting the scheduling of cupcakes after September, scheduling teams to go through a grinder of back to back to back games v. premier programs, etc, etc.

The PAC12 had idiots at the controls.  The SEC had guys who were laser focused on taking advantage of every edge available.

[gailtate]

PAC-12 "leadership" was a haven for football idiots. How come?

[gailtate]

PAC-12 "leadership" was a haven for football idiots. How come?

[fullmetal]

University presidents and athletic directors from a wide spectrum of universities were the decision-makers.  At no point did the Pac-12 universities hire a leader who could develop and negotiate the collective football (insofar as football is driving all of this) brand and viewership rights in rapidly changing athletics and media/broadcast environments.

Larry Scott was a Harvard tennis guy whose only professional experience was in tennis.  Kliavkoff, initially a lawyer, had more experience in sports broadcast rights from his MLB, Hulu, and WNBA work, but I don't think he was able to act quickly enough or with foresight given how the departures of U$C/UCLA seemed to take leadership by surprise.  The incentives of athletic departments regarding football money are quite powerful.

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey's career has been in college athletics from the start.  I'm not surprised that he's done such a good job.  Incidentally, all three of the men mentioned above were born in (and raised in?) the state of New York.  Had the chance to shake hands with Greg and say hi last year...quiet, unassuming man, seemed like a really nice guy.

[fullmetal]

University presidents and athletic directors from a wide spectrum of universities were the decision-makers.  At no point did the Pac-12 universities hire a leader who could develop and negotiate the collective football (insofar as football is driving all of this) brand and viewership rights in rapidly changing athletics and media/broadcast environments.

Larry Scott was a Harvard tennis guy whose only professional experience was in tennis.  Kliavkoff, initially a lawyer, had more experience in sports broadcast rights from his MLB, Hulu, and WNBA work, but I don't think he was able to act quickly enough or with foresight given how the departures of U$C/UCLA seemed to take leadership by surprise.  The incentives of athletic departments regarding football money are quite powerful.

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey's career has been in college athletics from the start.  I'm not surprised that he's done such a good job.  Incidentally, all three of the men mentioned above were born in (and raised in?) the state of New York.  Had the chance to shake hands with Greg and say hi last year...quiet, unassuming man, seemed like a really nice guy.