Priority For Next Pac-10 Commissioner - Changing Culture
Earlier this month Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen announced his intention to retire at the end of 2008-09 season. I think it's safe to say the news was received as a good one not by just members of the Bruin Nation, but fan across up and down the Pacific Coast (See Addicted to Quack's (ADQ) reaction). Now we may not identify with every one of ADQ's complaints with Hansen, there are couple of issues we can agree on: tv contracts & bowl arrangements. Again here is rye's post on BN following Hansen's announcement:
Hansen is a notorious traditionalist who has nixed a number of changes during his tenure. A number of complaints about Hansen include the lack of exposure for football and basketball (very few games on ESPN and an illogical allegiance to FSN), terrible bowl game arrangements for the conference, packaging the minor sport TV deals with football and not requiring FSN to show games, an allegiance to the Rose Bowl (and resistance to a playoff) and more. Keep in mind that Hansen reports to the university presidents so not everything is in his power.
I've met Hansen a number of times and even sat next to him at last year’s Pac 10 tournament. He’s an extremely nice guy and it’s clear that he cares more about academics than athletics, however his actions as commissioner have also made it clear that he is not very good at his job. There’s a laundry list of issues with the conference and Hansen has done little to fix them. It will be good to see a new person in charge.
The first thing that needs to be done is to stop this allegiance to FSN. I know for a fact that ESPN was preparing an amazing offer to cover Pac 10 football and basketball, but the conference agreed to their deal with FSN without even talking to ESPN. Along those lines, the conference needs to treat their minor sports better. FSN is required to show the Pac 10 Championships for a number of sports, but isn’t required to show a game or two a week. The conference has given FSn the rights to games, but the network is under no obligation to show games.
I’d also like to see the conference develop something similar to ACC Select. ACC select has webcasts of football and basketball games not on national TV and webcasts of minor sports available for a price ($10 per month, $50 for the entire spring). It’d be great if the Pac 10 also had this so our Bruins in exile could watch non-national games online and everyone can watch baseball, softball, soccer, gymnastics, volleyball, etc.
And here was the reaction from Dave at ADQ:
1. Our TV contract sucks. Will a new commissioner finally see the necessity of getting us on ESPN regularly? FSN is okay for a secondary home (see Big XII football or ACC basketball), but ESPN is where the real exposure is at. No more of this "but FSN will show volleyball" crap.
2. Our bowl arrangements suck. I realize that there are only so many bowl games in a reasonable area (no, Pac-10 tie-ins for Florida bowl games will not logistically work). But there are still things that can be done. Why do we always play down to other conferences (eg, Holiday Bowl is our #2 vs. Big XII #3)? Plus, we really need another New Year’s game. I would think that getting a spot in the Cotton Bowl back could be a possibility, although the Alamo Bowl may be more realistic.
3. The "exclusivity" clause, which prevents teams from showing games in their local markets during the "national" Pac-10 broadcast needs to go. This is why the WSU and Stanford games weren’t broadcast regionally next year. If the university wants to show it, they should be able to, instead of forcing USC down our throats again and again.
Dave also has serious concern about Pac-10 basketball tournament being in LA every year. I don't care about that concern all that much because I don't really even care about the tournament. I think a tournament doesn't do much for a program like us, which will usually take care of business in terms of tournament appearance, seeding by playing well in the regular season. But we can talk about that some other time.
What's important here we agree here on couple of important items, which is to update the culture of this conference in terms of it's TV contracts and bowl arrangements, so that they fit the current landscape of college football. Stewart Mandel also expressed those concerns (essentially channeling ryebreadaz) in last weeks' SI.com's college football mailbag
Hansen is a very nice man who's dedicated nearly half a century to college athletics, so I'm reluctant to flat-out bash the guy on the occasion of his retirement. That said -- I've done it plenty of times in the past. The Pac-10, more than any other conference, would benefit immeasurably from the leadership of a more modern and visionary commissioner. The league perennially lags behind its peers in terms of television contracts, bowl partnerships and national perception despite stacking up favorably with any of them when it comes to actual competition.
Some of that can't be helped. A new commissioner can't change the time-zone factor. And a new commissioner can't change the fact that in general, Pac-10 fans simply aren't as rabid as those in other parts of the country; they do not fill 80,000-seat stadiums for spring games or send monstrous hordes to bowl games. It's simply not good business for a New Year's game in Florida to align itself with schools 3,000 miles away.
But what's always bugged me about the Pac-10 under Hansen (and note that it's not just him, but the presidents and other officials he works with) is how out of touch they seem with their constituents. As long as the old-timers have the Rose Bowl and convenient kickoff times, they're happy. Their fans, however, understandably want more. They see the SEC getting the coveted prime-time ESPN slots every week, they see a star like Dennis Dixon fail to get the same massive publicity as a Tim Tebow, and, understandably, they get ticked off. (Note that for the most part, USC and UCLA don't suffer as much as the others.)
The Pac-10 can do better than syndicated Fox Sports Net games, the Pac-10 can do better than sending its No. 3 team to the Sun Bowl and the Pac-10 can do far more to promote its product. (As an example, all the other major conferences have two-to-three day preseason media events with their coaches and star players; the Pac-10's version is a two-hour event at an airport hotel.) Hopefully Hansen's replacement will be someone who recognizes this and will take the appropriate steps to change the culture.
It will be very interesting to see who the conference turns to in the coming months to replace TH. I sure hope the conference is not afraid to consider someone who comes from outside the Pac-10 bureaucracies or someone who is not afraid to challenge the current mindset wrt to our tv and bowl Ks.
GO BRUINS.
0 recs |
11
comments
Read Related
Comments
Improve Pac 10 Officiating
I don’t want to have to use SPTR again.
One of the posts I most remember from the time I joined BN was written by Nestor; he pointed out that the Pac 10 does not have thorough and comprehensive training for the officials in BB and FB.
We all have seen the results.
Officiating errors are a part of all sport. But, the conference should work to minimize them.
Hope the new commissioner makes this a priority.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Jun 23, 2008 5:52 AM PDT 0 recs
Some good points.
The TV contract issue is one that has been coming up for a long time. However, I think its not as simple as we chose FSN over ESPN. Sure, we could sign a deal with ESPN. But I think its important to understand the benefits as well as the costs of such a deal. I’m not sure exactly what all the costs and benefts are, but I only hear about the speculative benefits. Surely, however, there would be costs. Some potential costs could be games in weird time slots and less overall games on tv. Also, it seems we would be the newest conference regularly on ESPN, so at least in the short term, it seems we would get LAST PICK as to to slots and channels. And let’s not pretend that all the games would be on ESPN. ESPN2 or ESPNU would be just as, or more, likely. [I can see it now, UCLA v. Arizona, midnight wednesday start time eastern time on ESPNU!]
I’m all for working in more ESPN games. However, there will be costs in doing business with ESPN, and we should at least be aware of them. And I don’t know that a more “modern” and “visionary” commissioner” would just sign a deal with ESPN—the biggest sports network with which our conference will have little relative leverage.. It seems to me that that would be like drilling in ANWR for oil (so simple, so obvious) as opposed to trying to come up alternative and long term energy solutions that are truly visionary.
Bottom line: I’m not for signing with ESPN at all costs.
With respect to our bowl affiliation, I agree—it sucks.
by rfirpo on Jun 23, 2008 8:27 AM PDT 0 recs
We should have at least talked to ESPN
Maybe play the two against each other to get an even better deal for the conference. It’s not as if we’re all that happy with the FSN deal as currently constructed anyway. Games on Versus? That’s not even a channel everyone gets. That was truly a shame.
by Tydides on
Jun 23, 2008 9:10 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Agreed.
You both make good points. I’m all for more exposure, but like rfirpo I would like to know the real costs and benefits of a deal with ESPN. To me, it’s been frustrating to see the Pac-10 frozen out because of their FSN deal, but it’s also been great to be able to watch every UCLA basketball and football game (even if I did have to stumble across some of them on Versus). Of course, had the Pac-10 actually heard ESPN’s offer (and it makes no sense to me that they would refuse to even listen to it), we would likely know a lot more about those costs and benefits at this point.
by cabz on
Jun 23, 2008 10:54 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm doing some research on this
and should have a post up later today. Some of the numbers are staggering and I may split it into a couple parts.
by ryebreadraz on Jun 23, 2008 8:28 AM PDT 0 recs
Not today
there’s too much information to go through for me to have this done today. I’m also trying to filter through all of it and figure out how to make this thing shorter.
by ryebreadraz on
Jun 23, 2008 1:02 PM PDT
up
0 recs
As you continue your writing career
you will find out that it’s harder than you think to make something short. (15 pages for a motion is invariably not enough for one of my first drafts.)
by Fox 71 on
Jun 23, 2008 2:20 PM PDT
up
0 recs
On another front...
My impression from afar is that Hansen is a timid enforcer of rules. Whereas some commissioners like to send loud messages about what will not be tolerated, Hansen seems to adopt a wait-and-see approach.
The cases of No-Rent Reggie and Free-Rent Dwane come to mind. It’s one thing for the legal cases to play out. But, if Hansen cannot see the systemic diseases in these cases, then he’s just not paying attention. A law-and-order commissioner would have suspected violators cowering, not blustering. Hansen’s playing prevent defense, and frittering away leads. I would hope that a new commissioner would do better.
by Bruinut on Jun 23, 2008 8:48 AM PDT 0 recs
I hate to be a broken record
but he really is another version of our own Pete Dallis. Visionless, risk averse, undaring.
The Pac 10 needs their own Dan Guerrero.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Jun 23, 2008 8:52 AM PDT 0 recs
So long as they don't take DG
which I’m afraid they might.
sjh
by Class of 66 on
Jun 23, 2008 3:46 PM PDT
up
0 recs













