(01-29-2023 10:39 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 10:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder if hiring Jim Phillips would be able to give the Big 10 a leg up on deciphering the dispositions of some of the ACC schools they’d like to court.

I'm not sure if Phillips gives them a leg up on the ACC schools they want, but he has to be the odds on favorite right now.

Good.

The Kevin Warren experiment mostly failed.

Kliavkof is interesting, but he was also duped by the "Alliance." There's his glaring error and his league didn't have much margin for error thanks to the previous administration.

Jim Phillips hasn't been in his role very long either even though he's familiar with the inner workings of the Big Ten.

What that league needs is not someone who's currently in a major commissioner role. They need a grizzled veteran. They can't afford a serious error here and the other Power commissioners are not good options.

You could make an argument for Yormark actually. I think he's done a pretty good job overall, but I don't see him leaving the Big 12. I don't think he took that role so he could get a bigger job in the same industry. He seems to enjoy the unique challenges of any role he's been in rather than necessarily aggressively climbing a ladder.

(01-29-2023 11:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The Kevin Warren experiment mostly failed.

Kliavkof is interesting, but he was also duped by the "Alliance." There's his glaring error and his league didn't have much margin for error thanks to the previous administration.

Jim Phillips hasn't been in his role very long either even though he's familiar with the inner workings of the Big Ten.

What that league needs is not someone who's currently in a major commissioner role. They need a grizzled veteran. They can't afford a serious error here and the other Power commissioners are not good options.

You could make an argument for Yormark actually. I think he's done a pretty good job overall, but I don't see him leaving the Big 12. I don't think he took that role so he could get a bigger job in the same industry. He seems to enjoy the unique challenges of any role he's been in rather than necessarily aggressively climbing a ladder.

Phillips was the 2nd choice for the B1G last time around, it's unlikely he's done anything to change their high opinion of him since. Many in the B1G might want a do-over. Warren was a visionary, but many in the B1G did not share his vision. Phillips is probably the safest choice they could make and would be much more aligned with the B1G member schools on most issues.

(01-29-2023 04:24 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Kliavkoff hasn’t made any meaningful errors as commissioner. Frankly, I’d be thrilled if the B1G hired him.

Are you sure about that?

Search firms, to me, always seemed like an odd and unnecessary avenue to make important leadership hires. It seems that many hires are either candidates that the employee already wanted, or a hire that simply creates financial incentive for both the candidate and firm to recommend to the employers. Very rarely do recommended "outsiders" seem to be home run hires. I could be wrong though.

(01-30-2023 08:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 04:24 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Kliavkoff hasn’t made any meaningful errors as commissioner. Frankly, I’d be thrilled if the B1G hired him.

Are you sure about that?

The 'Alliance' betrayal is the exception that proves the rule, I'd say.

If a PAC commissioner's only unambiguous mistake is trusting the B1G on the 'Alliance' initiative in his rookie year, with all the decades of cooperation that existed between the PAC and the B1G to inspire confidence, one can reasonably say the betrayal reflects more poorly on other parties involved than on him.

If recent decisions are anything to go by, some B1G presidents may agree.

(01-30-2023 10:01 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 08:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 04:24 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Kliavkoff hasn’t made any meaningful errors as commissioner. Frankly, I’d be thrilled if the B1G hired him.

Are you sure about that?

The 'Alliance' betrayal is the exception that proves the rule, I'd say.

If a PAC commissioner's only unambiguous mistake is trusting the B1G on the 'Alliance' initiative in his rookie year, with all the decades of cooperation that existed between the PAC and the B1G to inspire confidence, one can reasonably say the betrayal reflects more poorly on other parties involved than on him.

If recent decisions are anything to go by, some B1G presidents may agree.

1. Agree
2. Quite Possibly!
3. Phillips is, or has the capability of being, an unused Trojan Horse. I'm sure he works for the ACC, but he also knows what the financial disparity will eventually do.
4. And remember, the presidents still signed off on the moves of USC and UCLA. It may not have been their scheme, but they endorsed it.

(01-30-2023 10:01 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 08:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 04:24 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Kliavkoff hasn’t made any meaningful errors as commissioner. Frankly, I’d be thrilled if the B1G hired him.

Are you sure about that?

The 'Alliance' betrayal is the exception that proves the rule, I'd say.

If a PAC commissioner's only unambiguous mistake is trusting the B1G on the 'Alliance' initiative in his rookie year, with all the decades of cooperation that existed between the PAC and the B1G to inspire confidence, one can reasonably say the betrayal reflects more poorly on other parties involved than on him.

If recent decisions are anything to go by, some B1G presidents may agree.

I agree with everything you said, but on top of that, was the alliance even a significant mistake? It's not like joining the alliance permitted the B1G any strategic advantage in getting USC/UCLA. That was a sucker punch with or without the alliance. It *may* have left more egg on Kliavkoff's face, but who cares?

Makes me think it probably won’t be Jim Phillips. Phillips is the type of candidate who I think the Big Ten would either hire right away, or not hire at all.

Hiring a search firm implies that they’re searching for much less well-known candidates.

(01-29-2023 03:25 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 03:09 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 02:53 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 02:33 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Turnkey assisted the Pac-12 in 2021. That search led to the hiring of present PAC commissioner George Kliavkoff.

As long as the B1G doesn't fall for making an 'Alliance' with itself, it should be fine.

If Kliavkoff is the result the PAC 12 got from Turnkey, then I would say the prospects are suspect at best.

Kliavkoff was fine until the LA schools left. And there’s nothing he could’ve done differently that would’ve kept them.

USC claims they might have stayed if the PAC had offered them an unequal share of revenue.

(01-30-2023 01:08 PM)Poster Wrote:  Makes me think it probably won’t be Jim Phillips. Phillips is the type of candidate who I think the Big Ten would either hire right away, or not hire at all.

Hiring a search firm implies that they’re searching for much less well-known candidates.

Hiring a search firm also offers protection from allegations of predatory poaching.

An agency can put Kliavkoff, Yormark and Phillips all on its long list. Any of these names that does not appear on the short list of finalists is someone who (ahem) was not available.

(01-30-2023 01:05 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 10:01 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  The 'Alliance' betrayal is the exception that proves the rule, I'd say.

If a PAC commissioner's only unambiguous mistake is trusting the B1G on the 'Alliance' initiative in his rookie year, with all the decades of cooperation that existed between the PAC and the B1G to inspire confidence, one can reasonably say the betrayal reflects more poorly on other parties involved than on him.

If recent decisions are anything to go by, some B1G presidents may agree.

I agree with everything you said, but on top of that, was the alliance even a significant mistake? It's not like joining the alliance permitted the B1G any strategic advantage in getting USC/UCLA. That was a sucker punch with or without the alliance. It *may* have left more egg on Kliavkoff's face, but who cares?

An argument can be made that the 'Alliance' moment did deal one enduring bruise to the PAC and ACC.

The understanding was that the three 'Alliance' leagues (B1G, PAC, ACC) wouldn't try to poach from any of the others, or indeed from the SEC and B12. As we know, the 'Alliance' paused expansion for only two of its three member leagues. The B1G quietly prepared to add two new schools from its 'ally' to the west as the PAC and ACC stood pat.

In that interim, the reeling B12 mended its own scars with the help of a few schools that might otherwise have approached the ACC or PAC about membership—had either of those leagues been considering expansion.

(01-30-2023 05:02 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:08 PM)Poster Wrote:  Makes me think it probably won’t be Jim Phillips. Phillips is the type of candidate who I think the Big Ten would either hire right away, or not hire at all.

Hiring a search firm implies that they’re searching for much less well-known candidates.

Hiring a search firm also offers protection from allegations of predatory poaching.

An agency can put Kliavkoff, Yormark and Phillips all on its long list. Any of these names that does not appear on the short list of finalists is someone who (ahem) was not available.

It’s a little annoying that you have to bring in a search firm for legal cover when looking at a guy who runs a league a notch below the Big 10 who you already vetted for the job just a few years ago for the exact same job. He seems like a logical candidate to already be on the shortlist.

(01-30-2023 05:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 05:02 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 01:08 PM)Poster Wrote:  Makes me think it probably won’t be Jim Phillips. Phillips is the type of candidate who I think the Big Ten would either hire right away, or not hire at all.

Hiring a search firm implies that they’re searching for much less well-known candidates.

Hiring a search firm also offers protection from allegations of predatory poaching.

An agency can put Kliavkoff, Yormark and Phillips all on its long list. Any of these names that does not appear on the short list of finalists is someone who (ahem) was not available.

It’s a little annoying that you have to bring in a search firm for legal cover when looking at a guy who runs a league a notch below the Big 10 who you already vetted for the job just a few years ago for the exact same job. He seems like a logical candidate to already be on the shortlist.

Eh - the use of an outside search firm is par for the course for any major executive position these days. As a corporate lawyer that has had to deal with plenty of hiring/employment issues, no one should give short shrift to the legal cover that these search firms provide. Think of it as a company effectively using the cost of a search firm as being the cost of insurance against any type of claim arising from the hiring process (e.g. being able to make contact with people with less risk of tripping over non-solicitation and non-compete clauses, a layer of defense if an EEOC or other employment discrimination claim comes up, etc.). For what the target executives are making, the cost of a search firm honestly isn't much for a fair level of CYA protection. No one wants to be "penny wise, pound foolish" in these situations.

(01-30-2023 10:01 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 08:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-29-2023 04:24 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Kliavkoff hasn’t made any meaningful errors as commissioner. Frankly, I’d be thrilled if the B1G hired him.

Are you sure about that?

The 'Alliance' betrayal is the exception that proves the rule, I'd say.

If a PAC commissioner's only unambiguous mistake is trusting the B1G on the 'Alliance' initiative in his rookie year, with all the decades of cooperation that existed between the PAC and the B1G to inspire confidence, one can reasonably say the betrayal reflects more poorly on other parties involved than on him.

If recent decisions are anything to go by, some B1G presidents may agree.

Fair point, but I think his greatest mistake there was naivety. He seemed to really believe that an amateur-focused path was the way forward and that the SEC was by itself destabilizing college athletics...the mantra of the Alliance.

Had he been a little more thoughtful, I think he would have been more careful about who his friends were and more importantly he might have considered leaning into the future rather than the past. In so doing, he forfeited opportunities to profit his own league.

I can understand why USC was anxious to leave, but other than wishful thinking about a new contract, what did Kliavkof do to prevent it?

I remember all the talk about USC potentially looking at independence and many scoffing at the notion. Well, it was even worse than some of us predicted because losing the LA market is going to wound the PAC permanently if not kill it off. Kliavkof was not doing the calculations...he wasn't considering the immense importance of the LA market and how losing it could be a point of no return.

What could he do in response?

I actually don't think it would have taken as much of a miracle working effort as some might think.

1. Go all in with ESPN.
2. Sell the PAC Networks to ESPN.

Now you've got a corporate monster at your back. That would have served their interests, but the league was too entrenched in their ways to think 3 or 4 moves ahead.

Beyond that?

Let the past go and think about how to capitalize on the new marketplace. The SEC was emerging as a leader in this vein of thought. Instead of alienating them, the PAC should have been cooperating with them. There was some evidence of that actually in a conversation about Kliavkof and Sankey uniting to lobby Capitol Hill, but it needed to go deeper than that.

The SEC had established a virtual hegemony. Would have been best to team up and think of ways to move athlete compensation into the future. Specifically perhaps by using corporate partners...like Disney...to build more of a conference-wide consortium instead of making it all about individual schools doing their own thing.

I guess what I'm saying is even if none of that would have saved the PAC 12, it would have at least been an effort. As far as I can tell, they sat back and believed a streaming service would drop money in their lap. The hope being that would salve every problem.

(01-30-2023 08:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  ....
I can understand why USC was anxious to leave, but other than wishful thinking about a new contract, what did Kliavkof do to prevent it?

What could Kliavkoff do to prevent it? You'd lose USC, too. If you're the commissioner of the PAC, B12, ACC, or any G5 league, you'll lose any school a P2 conference wants. There's a revenue gap. You can't compete.

As for the new contract, no wishful thinking was involved. The PAC is negotiating a new contract. This was always on the calendar. Everyone saw it coming. USC just didn't want to stick around. (See above paragraph for reasons.) The B1G saw to it that USC didn't have to. Off it went.

In my experience, there's only one thing that prevents any team from bolting to a P2 league that wants it: a GoR that nails its foot to the floor. Don't ask me how I know.

Quote:I actually don't think it would have taken as much of a miracle working effort as some might think.

1. Go all in with ESPN.
2. Sell the PAC Networks to ESPN.

Now you've got a corporate monster at your back.
....

The same monster the ACC has at its back? There's still a revenue gap. If that gap doesn't narrow considerably by around 2033 or so, the ACC will lose its own 'USCs.' There's nothing to prevent that, no matter who the commissioner is.

USC was gone.

Kliavkoff could assure the LA schools that if they stayed patient, the next media contract would be better—as indeed it would have been. He could get to work addressing his inherited Scott-era problems by saving money and revamping the conference network—as indeed he has. But he could never promise the LA schools an extra $30-40M a year at the end of the wait. There's no 'effort' any commissioner is going to make that can cover that gap—especially not in mere months. The B1G was rich and ready to take the LA schools. They were gone.

Cal and any of the rest would go, too. So would any school in the B12, ACC, or G5. All they need is the call.

Until that revenue gap closes, that's how things stand. Scapegoating individuals doesn't change this.