Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
Author Message
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,739
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 617
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #1
Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
https://t.co/gDmhaLfZq9?amp=1

Quote:Asked about “failures” or “goals left unaccomplished,” Scott said this:

“I didn’t anticipate the amount of change amongst our leadership, presidents, chancellors and athletics directors that were really aligned about a long-term vision. And as we had change in leadership on our campuses, the focus became much more on short-term pressures. And in hindsight, if we had done shorter TV deals, even if it meant leaving some money on the table, I think our members would have appreciated being able to redo our TV contracts a little bit sooner.”

Also, he said this:

“If I could hit the rewind, it would have been shorter TV deals if I had a crystal ball and knew the short-term pressures and the reactions people would have to the SEC and Big Ten redoing their deals a few years before us.”

In other words:

— My media strategy was bold and brilliant, but the presidents and athletic directors don’t have the patience to wait 12 years for the validation that I am certain will come.

— Don’t blame me if they’re frustrated that each Big Ten and SEC school is collecting $10 million to $20 million more in media revenue than any given Pac-12 school, year after year after year.

— It’s not my fault that the presidents and athletic directors believed my projections that the Pac-12 Networks would sign up with DirecTV and generate $5 million annually for each campus — instead of the $2 million they have been averaging.

— If they would just listen to me, they wouldn’t fret over the impact the massive revenue disparity has on their ability to hire and fire coaches, to built support staffs necessary to serve the athletes, to expand recruiting budgets, to schedule for success and to help pay for the facility upgrades required to attract the talent necessary to win at the highest level.

USFFan
06-09-2021 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Fighting Muskie Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,305
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #2
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
No one in the PAC 12 is going to miss tennis Larry
06-09-2021 05:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,330
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 143
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
So, was it Scott’s fault that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State didn’t get invites, which would have resulted in a better media contract? Asking for a friend.

The friend also wants to know if B1G-PAC is his fault, too, for not passing...and giving the conference a wheelbarrow of money?

Quote: Even if Scott is correct — and he’s not — you just don’t say that.

Except he is correct. And the schools should be shown for owning their own failures.

It’s not that he wasn’t a loser for other reasons, but, no, he shouldn’t fall on a sword for how USC and Stanford acts. “Be the bigger person” narrative? Gag.
06-09-2021 05:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,380
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #4
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
(06-09-2021 05:55 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  So, was it Scott’s fault that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State didn’t get invites, which would have resulted in a better media contract? Asking for a friend.

The friend also wants to know if B1G-PAC is his fault, too, for not passing...and giving the conference a wheelbarrow of money?

Quote: Even if Scott is correct — and he’s not — you just don’t say that.

Except he is correct. And the schools should be shown for owning their own failures.

It’s not that he wasn’t a loser for other reasons, but, no, he shouldn’t fall on a sword for how USC and Stanford acts. “Be the bigger person” narrative? Gag.

In his interview with the AP, Scott said:

"But the idea of the Pac-12 needing to box above its weight level, we absolutely have. When you look at our fanbase, the passion of the fans, the time zone challenges, there’s no doubt the Pac-12 has closed the gap in most respects and is boxing above its weight level. Whereas, people would not have said that about the Pac-12 in 2009."

To me, this seems to imply that the PAC is doing better overall these days than one would expect given its resources ("punch above your weight") and I would disagree with that. I think the PAC is underperforming relative to its resources and capabilities, and its overall public perception is that it has declined relative to other power conferences since 2009, not exceeded expectations.

In sum, I do not think there is a perception that the PAC is performing better, in just the most general overall sense, relative to the other power conferences than it was in 2009. To the contrary, I think that there is a perception that the PAC has slipped in power and relevance during that time.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-interview-...45690.html
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2021 06:34 PM by quo vadis.)
06-09-2021 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,360
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 109
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
(06-09-2021 05:55 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  So, was it Scott’s fault that Oklahoma and Oklahoma State didn’t get invites, which would have resulted in a better media contract? Asking for a friend.

The friend also wants to know if B1G-PAC is his fault, too, for not passing...and giving the conference a wheelbarrow of money?

Quote: Even if Scott is correct — and he’s not — you just don’t say that.

Except he is correct. And the schools should be shown for owning their own failures.

It’s not that he wasn’t a loser for other reasons, but, no, he shouldn’t fall on a sword for how USC and Stanford acts. “Be the bigger person” narrative? Gag.

Larry Scott acted like he was King Scott. He was arrogant. He was abrasive. He spent money like a drunken sailor. He did not develop relationships. He was in charge of the Pac-12 Network which had 14.8 million subscribers as of December 2020. The 12 year TV contract was too long, the officiating was a mess and it was Scott that came up with the idea of the Pac-12 Network going alone.

Schools in the Big Ten that make bad decisions can overcome them with their revenue advantages. That is not as easy for the Pac-12, especially if you are not getting any help or support from the Conference Commissioner.
06-10-2021 12:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,330
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 143
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
(06-10-2021 12:02 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Schools in the Big Ten that make bad decisions can overcome them with their revenue advantages. That is not as easy for the Pac-12, especially if you are not getting any help or support from the Conference Commissioner.

Expansion was the path to more money. Beyond twelve. It’s not that I disagree with you on the above, but the path was defined. The PAC schools chose to disagree with that. And when the PAC chose to pass on an alternative to expansion on a project/share with the Big Ten, well, the Big Ten, not being stupid or foolish, expanded again. And maybe expanded with programs that held other value beyond football or athletics in general. The Big Ten knew how to play the game. Same with the SEC. Heck, same as the ACC.

What annoys me about the PAC is stuff out there about schools’ disappointment with revenue, or lack of eastward reach for more variety on the dial. But, then what of what they rejected that could have done both...either of those options (OU-OSU expansion or B1G-PAC, even if B1G-PAC had limitations)?

Larry Scott got that stuff. He put it in front of the presidents. And all they, the presidents, had to do was vote for it. Only, they didn’t. Now, for what wasn’t sewn, you can’t reap. Yet, this is on Larry? If he was better at his job, he could have made a better case for the schools to think beyond their way of things? Really?

The PAC schools overthought this one. This precedes how a commissioner can’t manage the group. And it’s not to be read as pro-Scott. You can have both: a bad commissioner and a group of schools who made bad decisions (and a bad hire) who need to own their ****. I’m on the side of the latter.
06-10-2021 06:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,380
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #7
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
(06-10-2021 06:07 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 12:02 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Schools in the Big Ten that make bad decisions can overcome them with their revenue advantages. That is not as easy for the Pac-12, especially if you are not getting any help or support from the Conference Commissioner.

Expansion was the path to more money. Beyond twelve. It’s not that I disagree with you on the above, but the path was defined. The PAC schools chose to disagree with that. And when the PAC chose to pass on an alternative to expansion on a project/share with the Big Ten, well, the Big Ten, not being stupid or foolish, expanded again. And maybe expanded with programs that held other value beyond football or athletics in general. The Big Ten knew how to play the game. Same with the SEC. Heck, same as the ACC.

What annoys me about the PAC is stuff out there about schools’ disappointment with revenue, or lack of eastward reach for more variety on the dial. But, then what of what they rejected that could have done both...either of those options (OU-OSU expansion or B1G-PAC, even if B1G-PAC had limitations)?

Larry Scott got that stuff. He put it in front of the presidents. And all they, the presidents, had to do was vote for it. Only, they didn’t. Now, for what wasn’t sewn, you can’t reap. Yet, this is on Larry? If he was better at his job, he could have made a better case for the schools to think beyond their way of things? Really?

The PAC schools overthought this one. This precedes how a commissioner can’t manage the group. And it’s not to be read as pro-Scott. You can have both: a bad commissioner and a group of schools who made bad decisions (and a bad hire) who need to own their ****. I’m on the side of the latter.

Forgive my poor memory, but what did the PAC presidents not vote for? Scott had big bold plans. He wanted a vast, intricate multi-tiered conference TV network - and the presidents voted for it.

He had a bold expansion plan involving raiding the B12 for Texas, Oklahoma and some other B12 schools - from what I remember, the presidents were on board for that as well, IIRC that collapsed when the Big 12 told Texas it could form its own TV network, the LHN, and without Texas the deal collapsed. The PAC did expand by adding Utah and Colorado, so I don't think we can say the presidents were expansion-averse during that time. He had a bold idea for the PAC-B1G alliance and the presidents did initially approve that. IIRC, that fell apart over PAC logistical concerns about its 9-game conference schedule compared to 8 for the B1G. Essentially, USC and Stanford, given their series with Notre Dame, had problems because the alliance would have left them with no cupcakes on the schedule, and ever team needs cupcakes.

As for revenue, sure, the PAC is way behind the B1G and SEC, but so is everybody else. They are naturally more valuable. The latest distribution figures I've seen for the others are:

B12 .... $37m to $40m per school

ACC ... $30m to $37m per school

PAC ... $34m per school

So that puts the PAC a little behind the B12, and about the same as the ACC. And the Big 12, the conference that is doing best of that bunch, is the one with 10 members and has not expanded over the past 12 years, whereas the ACC is at 14 members and has been an aggressive expander, with the PAC between them.

So not clear how expansion has been the big ticket to more money? And the PAC does have the opportunity to increase its money in a couple years, the ACC is basically out of bullets for the time being.
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2021 09:16 AM by quo vadis.)
06-10-2021 06:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,305
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #8
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
Scott and the university presidents are both to blame. Put Larry in a room with those 12 presidents and you’ve got a lot of stupid crammed into a small space. You’re bound to get bad results.
06-10-2021 07:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,360
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 109
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
(06-10-2021 06:07 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 12:02 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Schools in the Big Ten that make bad decisions can overcome them with their revenue advantages. That is not as easy for the Pac-12, especially if you are not getting any help or support from the Conference Commissioner.

Expansion was the path to more money. Beyond twelve.

That is completely incorrect. Expansion was about the University of Texas and once they decided to stay, it was over. That was a decade ago. At that time, the Pac-10 had just signed a record TV deal and added Colorado and Utah to get to 12 and a CCG. The problem has been the complete mismanagement of the Pac-12 Network. As I mentioned in a previous post, the Pac-12 Network has 14.8 million subscribers as of December 2020. The Big Ten and SEC networks are well over 50 million.

The Pac-12 Network still doesn’t have a carriage deal with DirecTV, which means that the channel can’t even be found at most sports bars in America. You can go to a sports bar in Southern California and watch an SEC Network game or Big Ten Network game, but not a Pac-12 Network game. The lack of TV exposure has hurt recruiting, has reduced revenue and is not helping with fan interest.

Larry Scott is a con man and the University Presidents were suckers. In 2011, television revenue was going up and almost anyone could have beat the previous TV deal, which was not competitive. Going alone on the network was a huge mistake. Scott appointed himself as the president of the new network, which turned out to be an even bigger mistake. But don't feel bad for Larry. He will be collecting his exorbitant salary through June 2022, while he searches for a new target.

On the subject of expansion, after Texas decided to stay put, there was no school that would add revenue through expansion. UNLV and San Diego State don't move the revenue needle. There was only UT and nothing else came close.
06-10-2021 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


AssyrianDuke Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,180
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 74
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Loudoun County, VA
Post: #10
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
I've spent all this time trying so hard to succeed, when clearly the way to move up and ahead is to fail spectacularly! Fail up as they say!!!
06-10-2021 09:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,330
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 143
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
(06-10-2021 06:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Forgive my poor memory, but what did the PAC presidents not vote for?

You referenced it, but, the second pass on Oklahoma and Oklahoma State only as members of the conference after the resulting crumbling of PAC-16 and the Colorado and Utah grabs to twelve was one. How the scheduling alliance with the Big Ten fell apart at the end was the other. Both were avenues to more revenue and options the conference would later (currently) complain about. Both would have addressed that desire years earlier. Why they both fell apart, honestly, has always read or looked like someone missing the forest for the trees. OU and, really, OSU were practically as good as in if Texas was on board. So, in principle, their membership was not an issue. But, take Texas away, and now they aren’t candidates and the conference doesn’t need to grow? How did that age?

The scheduling alliance (I tend to call it B1G-PAC out of brevity, but that’s not what it was called) was apparently big enough a deal that when the PAC walked on it, really over cold feet by some of the schools over whatever concerns (timing, commitments to other series), the Big Ten expanded to 14. That conference even said it wouldn’t have necessarily expanded if the alliance had gone through.

So, we are now at where we are. Correct that things looked good in principle, but then scrapped. How is that on Larry if he didn’t make the vote?
06-11-2021 07:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,305
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #12
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
I wish the PAC 12 hadn’t torpedoed the B1G-PAC. The Big Ten might not have added Maryland Rutgers in order to maintain symmetry with the 12 member PAC 12.
06-11-2021 08:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,817
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 69
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #13
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
(06-10-2021 06:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 06:07 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 12:02 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Schools in the Big Ten that make bad decisions can overcome them with their revenue advantages. That is not as easy for the Pac-12, especially if you are not getting any help or support from the Conference Commissioner.

Expansion was the path to more money. Beyond twelve. It’s not that I disagree with you on the above, but the path was defined. The PAC schools chose to disagree with that. And when the PAC chose to pass on an alternative to expansion on a project/share with the Big Ten, well, the Big Ten, not being stupid or foolish, expanded again. And maybe expanded with programs that held other value beyond football or athletics in general. The Big Ten knew how to play the game. Same with the SEC. Heck, same as the ACC.

What annoys me about the PAC is stuff out there about schools’ disappointment with revenue, or lack of eastward reach for more variety on the dial. But, then what of what they rejected that could have done both...either of those options (OU-OSU expansion or B1G-PAC, even if B1G-PAC had limitations)?

Larry Scott got that stuff. He put it in front of the presidents. And all they, the presidents, had to do was vote for it. Only, they didn’t. Now, for what wasn’t sewn, you can’t reap. Yet, this is on Larry? If he was better at his job, he could have made a better case for the schools to think beyond their way of things? Really?

The PAC schools overthought this one. This precedes how a commissioner can’t manage the group. And it’s not to be read as pro-Scott. You can have both: a bad commissioner and a group of schools who made bad decisions (and a bad hire) who need to own their ****. I’m on the side of the latter.

Forgive my poor memory, but what did the PAC presidents not vote for? Scott had big bold plans. He wanted a vast, intricate multi-tiered conference TV network - and the presidents voted for it.

He had a bold expansion plan involving raiding the B12 for Texas, Oklahoma and some other B12 schools - from what I remember, the presidents were on board for that as well, IIRC that collapsed when the Big 12 told Texas it could form its own TV network, the LHN, and without Texas the deal collapsed. The PAC did expand by adding Utah and Colorado, so I don't think we can say the presidents were expansion-averse during that time. He had a bold idea for the PAC-B1G alliance and the presidents did initially approve that. IIRC, that fell apart over PAC logistical concerns about its 9-game conference schedule compared to 8 for the B1G. Essentially, USC and Stanford, given their series with Notre Dame, had problems because the alliance would have left them with no cupcakes on the schedule, and ever team needs cupcakes.

As for revenue, sure, the PAC is way behind the B1G and SEC, but so is everybody else. They are naturally more valuable. The latest distribution figures I've seen for the others are:

B12 .... $37m to $40m per school

ACC ... $30m to $37m per school

PAC ... $34m per school

So that puts the PAC a little behind the B12, and about the same as the ACC. And the Big 12, the conference that is doing best of that bunch, is the one with 10 members and has not expanded over the past 12 years, whereas the ACC is at 14 members and has been an aggressive expander, with the PAC between them.

So not clear how expansion has been the big ticket to more money? And the PAC does have the opportunity to increase its money in a couple years, the ACC is basically out of bullets for the time being.

Its hard to debate P5 TV deal numbers as they include so many arrangements. P5 presidents look at the total revenue figure and in that regard the PAC is further behind the B1G/SEC.

The PAC's problem though has more to do with recruiting. Recruiting wasn't as much of a problem when it was a 6 or 8 power conference system but its getting exposed in the P5 arrangement. The PAC added two more schools to go after the same talent base while the others expanded with those who brought another talent base into the conference.
06-11-2021 08:03 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


bluesox Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,810
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 62
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
Oklahoma and Oklahoma state were willing to move the the pac 12 10 years or so ago as a stand alone move. Yet, The pac 12 presidents vetoed Larry Scott invite to the OU president, most of the fault lies in that move for the pac 12 lagging now.
(This post was last modified: 06-11-2021 09:11 AM by bluesox.)
06-11-2021 09:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,330
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 143
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
(06-11-2021 09:10 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Oklahoma and Oklahoma state were willing to move the the pac 12 10 years or so ago as a stand alone move. Yet, The pac 12 presidents vetoed Larry Scott invite to the OU president, most of the fault lies in that move for the pac 12 lagging now.

Yeah, pretty much.
06-11-2021 09:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,360
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 109
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
(06-11-2021 07:08 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 06:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Forgive my poor memory, but what did the PAC presidents not vote for?

You referenced it, but, the second pass on Oklahoma and Oklahoma State only as members of the conference after the resulting crumbling of PAC-16 and the Colorado and Utah grabs to twelve was one. How the scheduling alliance with the Big Ten fell apart at the end was the other. Both were avenues to more revenue and options the conference would later (currently) complain about. Both would have addressed that desire years earlier. Why they both fell apart, honestly, has always read or looked like someone missing the forest for the trees. OU and, really, OSU were practically as good as in if Texas was on board. So, in principle, their membership was not an issue. But, take Texas away, and now they aren’t candidates and the conference doesn’t need to grow? How did that age?

The scheduling alliance (I tend to call it B1G-PAC out of brevity, but that’s not what it was called) was apparently big enough a deal that when the PAC walked on it, really over cold feet by some of the schools over whatever concerns (timing, commitments to other series), the Big Ten expanded to 14. That conference even said it wouldn’t have necessarily expanded if the alliance had gone through.

So, we are now at where we are. Correct that things looked good in principle, but then scrapped. How is that on Larry if he didn’t make the vote?

Larry Scott made the mistake of a verbal agreement with the Big Ten on a scheduling alliance without the approval of the key schools in the Pac-12, specifically the California schools. The idea was to schedule 12 non-conference games annually in football between the two conferences. One problem was that the Pac-12 played a nine game conference schedule and the Big Ten an eight game conference schedule. Another was Notre Dame, with their annual games against USC and Stanford. The California schools, with their California recruiting pipeline, had no problems scheduling games in non-conference against power conference schools and had plenty of future games already scheduled. What was this additional Big Ten game going to do for them?

If Larry had bothered to check with all of the Pac-12 schools, he would have realized this was never going to happen. I remember at a 2011 UCLA football breakfast that Bruin head coach Rick Neuheisel was complaining about the schedule from the previous season. Besides the nine game conference schedule, they played at Texas, at Kansas State, and their one patsy game was a home game against Houston, ranked No. 23 at the time. Replacing Houston with Wisconsin was not going to be appealing.

Just like adding OU and OSU had no appeal to the Pac-12 leadership, adding another power conference opponent on an already tough football schedule was not going to happen. If Larry was communicating with the conference leadership, he would never have made the commitment in the first place.
06-11-2021 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,330
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 143
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
(06-11-2021 11:16 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(06-11-2021 07:08 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(06-10-2021 06:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Forgive my poor memory, but what did the PAC presidents not vote for?

You referenced it, but, the second pass on Oklahoma and Oklahoma State only as members of the conference after the resulting crumbling of PAC-16 and the Colorado and Utah grabs to twelve was one. How the scheduling alliance with the Big Ten fell apart at the end was the other. Both were avenues to more revenue and options the conference would later (currently) complain about. Both would have addressed that desire years earlier. Why they both fell apart, honestly, has always read or looked like someone missing the forest for the trees. OU and, really, OSU were practically as good as in if Texas was on board. So, in principle, their membership was not an issue. But, take Texas away, and now they aren’t candidates and the conference doesn’t need to grow? How did that age?

The scheduling alliance (I tend to call it B1G-PAC out of brevity, but that’s not what it was called) was apparently big enough a deal that when the PAC walked on it, really over cold feet by some of the schools over whatever concerns (timing, commitments to other series), the Big Ten expanded to 14. That conference even said it wouldn’t have necessarily expanded if the alliance had gone through.

So, we are now at where we are. Correct that things looked good in principle, but then scrapped. How is that on Larry if he didn’t make the vote?

Larry Scott made the mistake of a verbal agreement with the Big Ten on a scheduling alliance without the approval of the key schools in the Pac-12, specifically the California schools. The idea was to schedule 12 non-conference games annually in football between the two conferences. One problem was that the Pac-12 played a nine game conference schedule and the Big Ten an eight game conference schedule. Another was Notre Dame, with their annual games against USC and Stanford. The California schools, with their California recruiting pipeline, had no problems scheduling games in non-conference against power conference schools and had plenty of future games already scheduled. What was this additional Big Ten game going to do for them?

If Larry had bothered to check with all of the Pac-12 schools, he would have realized this was never going to happen. I remember at a 2011 UCLA football breakfast that Bruin head coach Rick Neuheisel was complaining about the schedule from the previous season. Besides the nine game conference schedule, they played at Texas, at Kansas State, and their one patsy game was a home game against Houston, ranked No. 23 at the time. Replacing Houston with Wisconsin was not going to be appealing.

Just like adding OU and OSU had no appeal to the Pac-12 leadership, adding another power conference opponent on an already tough football schedule was not going to happen. If Larry was communicating with the conference leadership, he would never have made the commitment in the first place.

The scheduling alliance went further for other sports than it did for football. That there was a revolving football schedule (it wasn't like all twelve members of the conference would play against the Big Ten's twelve members respectively every year) that did offer flexibility.

And it also exposes a greater internal issue or rift in that where three or four members can be greater than six or eight, if only just because of voting purposes, the majority bloc isn't attained because a minority cluster can keep a measure down.

I don't advocate for Scott. Again, I put this at the feet of the schools to own their own failures. The PAC seems pretty bogged down by what either a cluster of four CA schools, or just what Stanford and USC want. And if they aren't happy, the other six or eight have had to do without. The conference's failures are a collective one. But, it seems the easy and lazy thing to do, like the article seems to voice, that it's more one (Scott) than the other (the schools who vote). And there is CLEARLY a problem with how USC and Stanford can throw their weight around.
Today 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 10,335
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 422
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
(06-11-2021 09:10 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Oklahoma and Oklahoma state were willing to move the the pac 12 10 years or so ago as a stand alone move. Yet, The pac 12 presidents vetoed Larry Scott invite to the OU president, most of the fault lies in that move for the pac 12 lagging now.

Yeah, I don't know about that.
Does Oklahoma make the PAC 12 network not s failure?
Does Oklahoma shorten the TV contracts?

Sure, the big 12 is ruined. That just means Texas goes to the Bug Ten or SEC or ACC. Which puts the PAC in a worse spot.
Today 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,619
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 132
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #19
RE: Larry Scott can't go away fast enough!
(Today 09:56 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  The scheduling alliance went further for other sports than it did for football. That there was a revolving football schedule (it wasn't like all twelve members of the conference would play against the Big Ten's twelve members respectively every year) that did offer flexibility.

And it also exposes a greater internal issue or rift in that where three or four members can be greater than six or eight, if only just because of voting purposes, the majority bloc isn't attained because a minority cluster can keep a measure down.

I don't advocate for Scott. Again, I put this at the feet of the schools to own their own failures. The PAC seems pretty bogged down by what either a cluster of four CA schools, or just what Stanford and USC want. And if they aren't happy, the other six or eight have had to do without. The conference's failures are a collective one. But, it seems the easy and lazy thing to do, like the article seems to voice, that it's more one (Scott) than the other (the schools who vote). And there is CLEARLY a problem with how USC and Stanford can throw their weight around.

I think I remember hearing about that. I feel that the Big 10 dodged a bullet as it would have forced a lot of unnecessary West Coast travel on Big 10 schools in non revenue sports. It's one thing to play football games in California and another to play women's volleyball or softball (not saying they aren't good teams in California). Of course not everyone's going to play in California, what happens to the teams stuck going to Washington, Oregon, or Arizona (especially when it's unbearably hot)? And replacing the ACC with the Pac-12 for an annual challenge in men's basketball?

(Today 10:16 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-11-2021 09:10 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Oklahoma and Oklahoma state were willing to move the the pac 12 10 years or so ago as a stand alone move. Yet, The pac 12 presidents vetoed Larry Scott invite to the OU president, most of the fault lies in that move for the pac 12 lagging now.

Yeah, I don't know about that.
Does Oklahoma make the PAC 12 network not s failure?
Does Oklahoma shorten the TV contracts?

Sure, the big 12 is ruined. That just means Texas goes to the Bug Ten or SEC or ACC. Which puts the PAC in a worse spot.

I don't know if Texas moving to another conference puts the PAC in a worse spot. If Texas goes to the Big 10 or SEC, the gap between that conference and the Pac 12 would widen. But if the Big 12 is reduced to a minor conference that's one less conference the Pac 12 would have to deal with. Instead of Texas/Texas Tech and Texas/Iowa State taking ABC and FOX spots away from the Pac 12, Texas's ABC games will be vs. Alabama, LSU, Georgia or Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, etc. and those conferences already have tons of games on the networks anyway. They might get a few more but the Big 12 will have a few less or if Oklahoma's also gone a lot less. You can argue that the Pac 12 is the 5th P5 conference now. If the Big 12's no more, they're definitely at worse 4th. Does it really matter how far behind they are the SEC and Big 10? They're far behind them now.
Today 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.