Left out: How Larry Scott and the Pac-12 continue to lose ground in the college football arms race

Conzano is a columnist, so he giving and sharing his opinion is his job. However, part of what he here is doxx Larry Scott via public records and it's petty and creepy.

(11-27-2018 12:31 PM)bronconick Wrote:  Left out: How Larry Scott and the Pac-12 continue to lose ground in the college football arms race

Good article. What stood out to me is the typical West Coast elites thinking that "Image" of the company is somehow more important than the "actual product". I'm not surprised that the PAC presidents don't see what is wrong here. After all they too are members of the club with Scott.

A prejudicial aside: This is what happens when you put a Harvard tennis player in charge of sports in the PAC. He thinks privilege, and refuses to see the significance of those brutes who play football. He has his private jet, his swank digs, and his fat salary and football had nothing to do with his personal success.

Do you really want to employ a guy like that if your livelihood comes from football and hoops?

It'll be interesting in 3 years- his current deal runs thru 2022. The Pac 12 TV contract comes up after the 23-24 season. So is he going to be allowed to be the one doing the next TV deal?

Tom Hansen is tan, rested and ready.

The PAC 12 definitely has a football problem right now.

(11-27-2018 12:31 PM)bronconick Wrote:  Left out: How Larry Scott and the Pac-12 continue to lose ground in the college football arms race

The PAC has it's issues.

Seems their commish is doing the athletic equivalent of Ford focusing on it's "hybrids" while ignoring the F-150.

It's nice to have hybirds doing well. Looks good, maybe enhances the sense of pride, gives you something to brag about at the country club, but the F-150 is where the MONEY is at.

It should be interesting to see how the PAC AD's and Presidents react during the next round of negotiations for media rights. If the PAC is being left in the dust money wise, don't be surprised if several schools look "elsewhere" when the next "new" contracts expire. Wouldn't be surprised if a few started putting out feelers in the next couple years.

Personally, I'm sure Husker fans wouldn't mind if their Buffalo friends joined the team. A nice trip to Berkley in November might not be bad for Badger fans as well.

Just sayin.....

"Then-Pac-12 Enterprises president Gary Stevenson negotiated an 11-year lease on the downtown building owned by Kilroy Realty in 2011"

I hope he personally didn't do that. Any company or organization should have expert representation, even on "renewals".

He can only do what the presidents allow him to do.

He's not responsible for voting down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Member institution presidents did that.

He's not responsible for voting down B1G-PAC. Again, presidents did that.

Now, either one of these actions would have created an opportunity to restructure the media deal(s) they were in, and redirect the revenue flow(s). How is that his problem? He brought these to the table.

If he's responsible for not properly making college presidents understand how faulty their logic, stuffy and confining their "traditions" are, well, get in line. Nobody is really pulling that off. Not even in the Big Ten (ahem, FCS opponents off the schedule...but still are).

This writer is a fool. He should direct his finger-waving to Oregon and Oregon State's presidents for not properly coaxing their colleagues (or themselves) for not taking the opportunities (yes, plural) Scott helped to broker.

Choosing beggars.

(11-27-2018 03:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He can only do what the presidents allow him to do.

He's not responsible for voting down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Member institution presidents did that.

He's not responsible for voting down B1G-PAC. Again, presidents did that.

Now, either one of these actions would have created an opportunity to restructure the media deal(s) they were in, and redirect the revenue flow(s). How is that his problem? He brought these to the table.

If he's responsible for not properly making college presidents understand how faulty their logic, stuffy and confining their "traditions" are, well, get in line. Nobody is really pulling that off. Not even in the Big Ten (ahem, FCS opponents off the schedule...but still are).

This writer is a fool. He should direct his finger-waving to Oregon and Oregon State's presidents for not properly coaxing their colleagues (or themselves) for not taking the opportunities (yes, plural) Scott helped to broker.

Choosing beggars.

I wonder if that option were brought up for a vote today if that would change?

It's been several years since that dissolved and much has changed since then, including $$$.

It would be interesting to see who would vote what way if it were taken now.

(11-27-2018 03:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He's not responsible for voting down B1G-PAC. Again, presidents did that.

You either misunderstand or are just misrepresenting what that would have been.

It was a proposal for scheduling. There was no revenue sharing involved, and no additional money on offer. It would have been like the basketball "challenges" that ESPN has engineered with a few pairs of conferences, except extended to football and a few other sports. Like ESPN's basketball "challenges", the TV guys would have chosen the matchups of teams in football. That's why USC and Stanford objected, because they already play Notre Dame every year in football and didn't want ESPN foisting another difficult non-conference game on them every year. USC thought, probably correctly, that ESPN would want to juice ratings by matching USC with Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State most years. Even a USC hater like me understands why USC's football coaches didn't want to sign up for that in addition to playing ND every year.

Would it have been fun for fans? Sure. Is it a big deal that it didn't happen? Nope.

I honestly don’t see what the issue is, except maybe that Larry Scott is overpaid. But it’s not like he negotiated his contract with himself.

Bottom line: the PAC-12 on-field athletics product is just not as valuable as the SEC’s or the B1G’s, and it never will be, barring some major/dramatic realignment in the future. If the PAC is not okay with that, then they need to bribe Texas (they can bring a friend) into joining. Until that happens, the bitching and moaning can go on forever. Won’t change anything.

(11-27-2018 01:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 12:31 PM)bronconick Wrote:  Left out: How Larry Scott and the Pac-12 continue to lose ground in the college football arms race

Good article. What stood out to me is the typical West Coast elites thinking that "Image" of the company is somehow more important than the "actual product". I'm not surprised that the PAC presidents don't see what is wrong here. After all they too are members of the club with Scott.

A prejudicial aside: This is what happens when you put a Harvard tennis player in charge of sports in the PAC. He thinks privilege, and refuses to see the significance of those brutes who play football. He has his private jet, his swank digs, and his fat salary and football had nothing to do with his personal success.

Do you really want to employ a guy like that if your livelihood comes from football and hoops?

You think all those SEC guys aren't flying on private jets with swank diggs? The southerners perfected that high class "I'm better than you" act.

(11-27-2018 01:33 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 12:31 PM)bronconick Wrote:  Left out: How Larry Scott and the Pac-12 continue to lose ground in the college football arms race

The PAC has it's issues.

Seems their commish is doing the athletic equivalent of Ford focusing on it's "hybrids" while ignoring the F-150.

It's nice to have hybirds doing well. Looks good, maybe enhances the sense of pride, gives you something to brag about at the country club, but the F-150 is where the MONEY is at.

It should be interesting to see how the PAC AD's and Presidents react during the next round of negotiations for media rights. If the PAC is being left in the dust money wise, don't be surprised if several schools look "elsewhere" when the next "new" contracts expire. Wouldn't be surprised if a few started putting out feelers in the next couple years.

Personally, I'm sure Husker fans wouldn't mind if their Buffalo friends joined the team. A nice trip to Berkley in November might not be bad for Badger fans as well.

Just sayin.....

But the hybrids are the future and gas guzzling trucks are about to become extinct. Also once gas prices goes up again...and they will...those trucks will be collecting dust on the lots. Anyone remember the hummer?

(11-27-2018 03:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He can only do what the presidents allow him to do.

He's not responsible for voting down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Member institution presidents did that.

He's not responsible for voting down B1G-PAC. Again, presidents did that.

Now, either one of these actions would have created an opportunity to restructure the media deal(s) they were in, and redirect the revenue flow(s). How is that his problem? He brought these to the table.

If he's responsible for not properly making college presidents understand how faulty their logic, stuffy and confining their "traditions" are, well, get in line. Nobody is really pulling that off. Not even in the Big Ten (ahem, FCS opponents off the schedule...but still are).

This writer is a fool. He should direct his finger-waving to Oregon and Oregon State's presidents for not properly coaxing their colleagues (or themselves) for not taking the opportunities (yes, plural) Scott helped to broker.

Choosing beggars.

Fully agree, he was THIS close to pulling off a huge coup and still could have had a big time addition if not for the presidents not ready to add OU.

(11-27-2018 05:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 03:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He's not responsible for voting down B1G-PAC. Again, presidents did that.

You either misunderstand or are just misrepresenting what that would have been.

It was a proposal for scheduling. There was no revenue sharing involved, and no additional money on offer. It would have been like the basketball "challenges" that ESPN has engineered with a few pairs of conferences, except extended to football and a few other sports. Like ESPN's basketball "challenges", the TV guys would have chosen the matchups of teams in football. That's why USC and Stanford objected, because they already play Notre Dame every year in football and didn't want ESPN foisting another difficult non-conference game on them every year. USC thought, probably correctly, that ESPN would want to juice ratings by matching USC with Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State most years. Even a USC hater like me understands why USC's football coaches didn't want to sign up for that in addition to playing ND every year.

Would it have been fun for fans? Sure. Is it a big deal that it didn't happen? Nope.

Yes, but having more games with the B1G makes the PAC's TV much more valuable and gets them on in the eastern and central time zones more often.

(11-27-2018 06:40 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I honestly don’t see what the issue is, except maybe that Larry Scott is overpaid. But it’s not like he negotiated his contract with himself.

Bottom line: the PAC-12 on-field athletics product is just not as valuable as the SEC’s or the B1G’s, and it never will be, barring some major/dramatic realignment in the future. If the PAC is not okay with that, then they need to bribe Texas (they can bring a friend) into joining. Until that happens, the bitching and moaning can go on forever. Won’t change anything.

Still think Texas, OU and their +2 to the PAC can still happen. They are the only ones with the room to take those two and their preferred little bros.

Larry Scott isn't the problem. The PAC 12 universities need to mutually agree to increase their investments in college football and basketball or they risk turning into the Ivy League but not in a good way. More along the lines of an elitist, out of touch conference that puts little investment in their athletic product yet complains they aren't given the respect that their historical success should entitle them to but the present product does not merit.

Also, USC needs to stop overshceduling. Until they can be consistent big winners again they should not be playing 9 conference games plus ND and Texas in the same year.

(11-27-2018 07:50 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 05:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 03:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  He's not responsible for voting down B1G-PAC. Again, presidents did that.

You either misunderstand or are just misrepresenting what that would have been.

It was a proposal for scheduling. There was no revenue sharing involved, and no additional money on offer. It would have been like the basketball "challenges" that ESPN has engineered with a few pairs of conferences, except extended to football and a few other sports. Like ESPN's basketball "challenges", the TV guys would have chosen the matchups of teams in football. That's why USC and Stanford objected, because they already play Notre Dame every year in football and didn't want ESPN foisting another difficult non-conference game on them every year. USC thought, probably correctly, that ESPN would want to juice ratings by matching USC with Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State most years. Even a USC hater like me understands why USC's football coaches didn't want to sign up for that in addition to playing ND every year.

Would it have been fun for fans? Sure. Is it a big deal that it didn't happen? Nope.

Yes, but having more games with the B1G makes the PAC's TV much more valuable and gets them on in the eastern and central time zones more often.

Very little difference, or not at all. For example: Cal played North Carolina in football the last two years, and will play at Ole Miss next year. If there was a scheduling agreement with the Big Ten, Cal might play Northwestern and Maryland instead of North Carolina and Ole Miss.

(11-27-2018 07:53 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Still think Texas, OU and their +2 to the PAC can still happen. They are the only ones with the room to take those two and their preferred little bros.

Agree it’s possible. Although I honestly feel like it would’ve happened by now if it was really going to.