https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status...1227051008

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/02/28/f...darn-soon/

(It may be an article limit or paywall for some of you)

Quote: Scott’s deal expires in two years, but the window is somewhat condensed, sources said, by the timing of the Pac-12’s media rights agreements.

Although the deals with ESPN and Fox run into the spring of 2024, formal negotiations likely would commence 18-21 months earlier, in the fall of 2022 — or just after Scott’s current contract expires.

And the Pac-12’s strategy, according to sources with experience in media deals, would have to be mapped out well in advance of the fall of 2022.

...

“They can’t wait until 2022 to make a decision on Larry,’’ a source said.

“The future of the conference is at stake. By this summer, they have to know if he’s staying or going.”

There is a lot more in the article. But it looks like the schools are going to decide by summer whether Scott stays for this contract or if he goes, so they have time to find the person they want to negotiate the next contract.

The P12 has far more maneuverability than any other conference because they own their 3rd tier and that will be on the table as well.

Interesting times

Larry Scott is getting railroaded.

(03-01-2020 02:06 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Larry Scott is getting railroaded.

I'd say kind of deservedly so.

(03-01-2020 02:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 02:06 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Larry Scott is getting railroaded.

I'd say kind of deservedly so.

Why?

You don't have to like the guy, but scapegoating him for the conference's media revenue failures is like blaming the dealer for a bad draw. It just comes off trashy and amateurish shifting blame off yourself for bad play and decision-making.

They didn't want to expand to fourteen when everyone was. They didn't want to enter an inter-conference agreement. They wanted to keep individual ownership, and not do things like the Big Ten or SEC.

I think it's pitiful how the PAC is handling this.

If you read the article Bish, and you follow P12, you'll know the issues with Scott go far beyond the media contract, including officiating fiascos, lavish spending by Scott himself, and lack of responsiveness that alienated all the ADs (not so much the Presidents and Chancellors until recently). The contract however affects every school and their revenue, which is what gets the Chancellors and Presidents to perk up. Scott's deficiencies and failures have mounted over the years and eroded trust that he will get it done right. And when you pick a leader trust to get it right is everything.

I would not worry much about a man who will have made over $50m from the P12. I just wish I could screw up even half as lucratively.

You can't blame Scott for the Pac-12's poor performance in football and men's basketball in recent years. You can't sell a bad product.

You can blame him for the Pac-12 Network distribution and coverage. Of course if the product isn't as good, you can't expect cable companies to want it the same way they did the Big Ten Network, SEC Network, and ACC Network (and there is no Big 12 cable Network). You also can't expect the networks to give you good TV slots instead of giving them to other conferences if the ratings aren't there (the Pac-12 has in their contracts with both ABC and FOX for guaranteed prime time ET games on both networks so that's a good thing).

In the last realignment cycle, Larry Scott didn't bring in Texas but there were serious talks. Do you blame him for not getting it done or give him credit for at least trying? And Scott did bring in Colorado and Utah and extended the conference into both states and into more markets. Does he get credit for that?

(03-01-2020 02:24 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 02:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 02:06 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Larry Scott is getting railroaded.

I'd say kind of deservedly so.

Why?

You don't have to like the guy, but scapegoating him for the conference's media revenue failures is like blaming the dealer for a bad draw. It just comes off trashy and amateurish shifting blame off yourself for bad play and decision-making.

They didn't want to expand to fourteen when everyone was. They didn't want to enter an inter-conference agreement. They wanted to keep individual ownership, and not do things like the Big Ten or SEC.

I think it's pitiful how the PAC is handling this.

VERY TRUE! I am surprised that so many folks blame the conference commissioners for these deals. When things work out well the commissioner gets way more credit than he deserves. When things go bad the commissioner gets way more blame than he deserves. Remember, the commissioner is just the guy who represents the decisions that the presidents make. He cant single handily make these decisions or sign off on any deals without the approval of the presidents.

The PAC 12’s problems aren’t 100% Larry’s fault but he certainly exasperates them. The PAC 12 Network has way too much overhead. He sold the schools on owning their network outright as opposed to partnering with a broadcaster and its been a disaster.

Above all, the PAC 12 schools need to perform better in revenue sports. Until they do, there is no reason for anyone to spend big to get their rights.

Presidents are the PAC 12 Board of Directors and Scott is their CEO

If Scott sold them on a vision of being independent and not partnering with Fox or ESPN then yes they have a right to fault him as that vision has been a bust.

If he advised them to work with ESPN or Fox and they denied his advice then that is on them

(03-01-2020 02:24 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 02:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-01-2020 02:06 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Larry Scott is getting railroaded.

I'd say kind of deservedly so.

Why?

You don't have to like the guy, but scapegoating him for the conference's media revenue failures is like blaming the dealer for a bad draw. It just comes off trashy and amateurish shifting blame off yourself for bad play and decision-making.

They didn't want to expand to fourteen when everyone was. They didn't want to enter an inter-conference agreement. They wanted to keep individual ownership, and not do things like the Big Ten or SEC.

I think it's pitiful how the PAC is handling this.

This is all about the Pac-12 Network. It has become an albatross around the conference neck. The only person befitting from the Pac-12 Network is Larry Scott, who parlayed the idea of the Pac-12 owning their own network into a $5.3 million dollar annual salary, offices in San Francisco with an annual rent of $6.9 million and a very nice pad in Danville. The pad in Danville cost $1.85 million for a 4,600 square foot home on one acre in the upscale Blackhawk Country Club subdivision in Danville. He was given a $1.86 million dollar relocation loan, which he has never paid back. I am guessing that he used the loan on the new house, which is definitely worth a lot more than he paid for it. No one will ever describe Scott as "frugal."

Scott has a network that reaches about 18 million homes. I read where the SEC Network reached 69 million homes and the Big Ten Network 60 million homes. So exposure is a huge problem, especially in California, which does not help recruiting. In California, it is easier to find an SEC or Big Ten Network game than a Pac-12 Network game on TV. The Pac-12 Network has Longhorn Network type of exposure issues, but at least Texas is getting $15 million annually for the crummy exposure.

In listening on the radio to USC football talk over the past few months, the only person more unpopular than Clay Helton is Larry Scott. I think Helton is going to miss Larry Scott...

PAC 12 may need to do a somewhat merger/partnership with the MWC/WCC/BYU football to get some heat or turned up the competition. Some of their best selling tickets for football games are other MWC schools in their regions like Boise State fans do travel to the PAC 12 north teams. They get better fan support than ACC schools in the bowl games except for Clemson.

(03-01-2020 06:22 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  PAC 12 may need to do a somewhat merger/partnership with the MWC/WCC/BYU football to get some heat or turned up the competition. Some of their best selling tickets for football games are other MWC schools in their regions like Boise State fans do travel to the PAC 12 north teams. They get better fan support than ACC schools in the bowl games except for Clemson.

Why not go national if the PAC is going to do this. Having more easterly teams can only help in recruiting those athletes the PAC does not reach. Bringing in MWC teams do not have that advantage. As far as tickets sold, ratings is the real concern with procuring more network games.

(03-01-2020 04:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  This is all about the Pac-12 Network. It has become an albatross around the conference neck. The only person befitting from the Pac-12 Network is Larry Scott, who parlayed the idea of the Pac-12 owning their own network into a $5.3 million dollar annual salary, offices in San Francisco with an annual rent of $6.9 million and a very nice pad in Danville. The pad in Danville cost $1.85 million for a 4,600 square foot home on one acre in the upscale Blackhawk Country Club subdivision in Danville. He was given a $1.86 million dollar relocation loan, which he has never paid back. I am guessing that he used the loan on the new house, which is definitely worth a lot more than he paid for it. No one will ever describe Scott as "frugal."

Scott has a network that reaches about 18 million homes. I read where the SEC Network reached 69 million homes and the Big Ten Network 60 million homes. So exposure is a huge problem, especially in California, which does not help recruiting. In California, it is easier to find an SEC or Big Ten Network game than a Pac-12 Network game on TV. The Pac-12 Network has Longhorn Network type of exposure issues, but at least Texas is getting $15 million annually for the crummy exposure.

In listening on the radio to USC football talk over the past few months, the only person more unpopular than Clay Helton is Larry Scott. I think Helton is going to miss Larry Scott...

What I've yet to hear is any PAC school coming out and saying that they didn't want to own their own network. They wanted their rights.

It was a gamble, and it didn't work for them. But that's not all on Larry.

Call it what it is: he's a scapegoat/fall guy.

(03-01-2020 03:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Presidents are the PAC 12 Board of Directors and Scott is their CEO

Yes. The idea that a commissioner is just a figurehead that merely does what the presidents tell him to do does not comport with reality. Presidents have many things on their agenda, they hire a commissioner to LEAD in the area of athletics. Yes, the presidential board has to sign off on things, but you don't hire a commissioner at $5m a year to be your rubber-stamp, any more than the Disney board hires a CEO to be its rubber stamp, to the contrary, the commissioner is paid to lead and have vision and take the initiative in athletics.

So ... "blaming the commissioner" for poor financial conference outcomes is blaming him for exactly what he is paid for, just as blaming a head coach for poor results on the field is.

(03-01-2020 02:49 PM)schmolik Wrote:  You can't blame Scott for the Pac-12's poor performance in football and men's basketball in recent years. You can't sell a bad product.

Well, revenues for P5 conferences have little to do with results on the field or court. E.g., the B1G and Big 12 have collectively won zero hoops and one football title the past 10 years, but their revenues have skyrocketed during that time.

Also, the idea of the P12 having a "bad product" is vastly overrated. E.g., looking at the Massey Composite, the number of times the PAC has finished last among the P5 in football the past 10 years is two times. This past year they were #4, way ahead of the ACC. And I just glanced at the current conference RPI hoops rankings and the PAC is #3.

The PAC has continued to perform like a "Power" conference during Scott's tenure.

Beatrice says it best:

https://youtu.be/r_StHb6bEKQ

(03-01-2020 03:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The PAC 12’s problems aren’t 100% Larry’s fault but he certainly exasperates them. The PAC 12 Network has way too much overhead. He sold the schools on owning their network outright as opposed to partnering with a broadcaster and its been a disaster.

Above all, the PAC 12 schools need to perform better in revenue sports. Until they do, there is no reason for anyone to spend big to get their rights.

I think a lot of the critiques of Scott are overblown and probably could be stated of any Power Five commissioner, but the bolded statement is absolutely correct and probably will be the linchpin for his downfall if he gets fired: not using an established media partner for the Pac-12 Network was absolutely a massive mistake and it's one that I believe many people (including me) thought was a mistake at the time (so it's not a 20/20 hindsight observation). I'm fairly certain that the Pac-12 could have received a Big Ten-like deal for a 50/50 split of a conference network with Fox or another media partner and, if that had happened, we wouldn't be talking about any conference revenue issues for the Pac-12 today.

The frustrating thing from observing the Pac-12 is that I really believe that this is the conference that is best positioned for the long haul future (and I say that as a Big Ten guy). When you look at the list of places that are fastest growing and gaining the most educated and high income workers in particular, you'll see Denver, Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City and Phoenix on virtually all of those lists. That's on top of the existing economic powerhouses in Los Angeles and San Francisco. That's why I've long believed that one of the primary critiques of the Pac-12's media deals where they simply aren't in the Eastern/Central Time Zones is vastly overrated. Frankly, I'd rather be the effective college sports monopoly in the Mountain and Pacific Time Zones that are absolutely crushing it economically compared to the rest of the country when I'm looking at the long-term prognosis of the league (even if it might not translate into immediate dollars as of now). Larry Scott, for whatever reason, hasn't been able to translate that into a real advantage for the Pac-12 and, instead, seems to reverting to a traditional playbook of suddenly asking schools whether they'd be willing to play games at 9 am local time for TV purposes. The Pac-12 has as great of a set of assets of any conference for the long-term, but it doesn't seem to know how to maximize them.

Large, booming populations don’t necessarily translate to lots of college sports viewers. Fast growth doesn’t mean that all of those extra people are going to follow PAC 12 sports

(03-02-2020 12:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Large, booming populations don’t necessarily translate to lots of college sports viewers. Fast growth doesn’t mean that all of those extra people are going to follow PAC 12 sports

I agree, but the Pac-12 isn't made up of some minor athletic brands. USC and UCLA are blue blood football and basketball programs, respectively, and located in the 2nd largest media market in the country. Oregon has the best financial benefactor that you can possibly ask for with an athletic department (Phil Knight and Nike), Stanford is at the top of the academic elite (with a lower acceptance rate than Harvard), et. al. When USC is rolling in football, they are historically as great of a TV ratings draw as any school in the country and they own freaking *Los Angeles* as opposed to places like Birmingham and Columbus.

Asking the Pac-12 to have the same types of intense fan bases as the SEC and Big Ten may not be possible, but that's honestly not possible for any other league, anyway. However, there's absolutely zero reason why the Pac-12 should be behind the Big 12 and ACC with the assets that are on the West Coast. It's hard to remember, but the Pac-12's current TV deal with ESPN and Fox was the largest college sports deal ever signed when it was completed. The Pac-12 Network should have been an excellent revenue stream on top of that - once again, not necessarily on par with the BTN or SEC Network, but they should have definitely been in a better place than the ACC Network.

When the Pac-12 first decided on their network model (not to partner with a broadcast partner), there weren't that many other comparisons. There was no SECN or ACCN, only the BTN and the Mountain West Sports Network, which failed. When you go without a sports network to back you up you get all of the benefits but you take on all the costs (and there were certainly a ton of them in the P12's case and that's what's hurting them). The BTN and SECN are succeeding but that's mainly because their products and brands are stronger. We'll see if the ACCN takes off. Certainly men's basketball is stronger (although this year is a down year for the ACC and a stunningly good one for the Pac-12) but the ACC outside of South Carolina isn't much better than the Pac-12. If the ACCN is more successful than the Pac-12, then the P12N really is a failure. If it isn't, then it's the on field product.