Pac 10 Gets It Right With Hire Of Larry Scott As Commissioner
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 25, 2009 12:13 AM PDT
Email
PrintWith Tom Hansen on the way out and Larry Scott on the way in as Pac 10 commissioner, it's time to look forward. Looking back at the mistakes during Hansen's tenure is a waste of time and would take a lot of time at that. We have new leadership and Scott will have a lot of work to do.
The television contracts for both football and basketball are sorely in need of a massive overhaul and Scott seems like a man well suited for that overhaul. In his work for the WTA Scott worked on the tour's television contract and as a result has relationships with nearly every major network. CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, FSN and ESPN have all had discussions with Scott in the past 15 years. With regards to football, I doubt CBS will make much of a play for the Pac 10 games because they're married to the SEC and with the BCS leaving Fox (as well as their obligations to MLB) Fox isn't much of an option. NBC is committed to Notre Dame and any contract with NBC would not be beneficial to the conference because they would be playing second fiddle to the Irish. That leaves ABC, FSN and ESPN. The conference currently has games on all three channels, but many of the ABC games are regionalized, ESPN has only a few games per year and FSN doesn't have the greatest exposure. Unfortunately, the conference's television contracts do not expire until after the 2011 season so Scott will have to wait before embarking on what could be a turning point in Pac 10 college football.
In basketball, the conference has games broadcast by CBS, ABC, FSN and two games a year on ESPN. Neither Fox nor NBC show any college basketball and it's doubtful that they'd get involved any time soon. The biggest gripe with the conference's TV contract is the lack of games on ESPN. Getting on to TV in basketball is tougher than in football because of the inflexibility with the Thursday-Saturday (and occasional Sunday) schedule. While I have no doubt that the conference would be far more attractive to ESPN if they were willing to scrap their current schedule, the network would have to offer money the conference has never even imagined before to get such a change. Even without a schedule change, the conference can do better. Simple things like making the ABC games no longer regional and getting just one Thursday and one Saturday game on ESPN would go a long ways. The Big XII already has a similar agreement with ESPN. Just like football though, Scott won't get a crack at this contract for some time. The current TV deals don't end after the 2011-2012 season.
Now, Scott should be much more adept at negotiating the TV contracta in both sports and has said in his few statements today that increasing exposure is a priority, but I found this comment to be most interesting.
He said the conference was geographically well situated to create its own network the way the Big Ten has.
“It has universities from contiguous states, mostly land-grant schools that dominate the state,” he said. “That’s a lot of marketing power among alumni and fans when you consider the distribution.”
Now this is the type of forward thinking the conference has lacked in recent years. Creating a Pac 10 channel similar to the Big 10 Network is ambitious, difficult and possibly risky. In other words, it is something absent from the conference's current brain trust. The Big 10 Network was launched on the first day of the 2007 football season and is projected to turn a profit this year. There have been issues with cable company carriage, but that is to be expected. The network is projected to provide revenue unmatched by any other conference and has provided great exposure for smaller sports.
In addition to 35+ football games, 100+ men's basketball games and 55+ women's basketball games, the network shows over 170 games in other sports. The Pac 10 already enjoys more success than any other conference in non-revenue sports and would benefit from being able to expose the quality of play to a greater number of people. Scott's experience with sports that are non-revenue in the college world will be vital to the success of his tenure. The conference already excels on the field, but the exposure and revenue generated from the sports don't match the other programs nationwide. Scott has an inner knowledge about these sports and will best know how to help them grow.
Another issue with the Pac 10 office has been their inability to negotiate better bowl contracts and this will be an area where Scott will have to prove himself. He has proven to be very good with TV networks and sponsors, but he has no experience dealing with the bowl committee club. Those on the bowl committee are essentially members of a fraternity and Scott will have to prove himself to these men and gain their respect. One thing he will have in his corner though is the TV networks. Television revenue is the largest source of revenue for the bowls and if Scott can gain the support of the networks, he will enter negotiations with a lot of leverage.
Sponsorship and branding in another area that Scott can help the conference. Simple things like the conference's logo on team's uniforms, courts or fields can go a long ways to increasing exposure. It's not a difficult thing to do, but the conference doesn't. Bringing in someone like Scott could give the conference a new look things like that. Scott will also help the conference's sponsors by means of increased exposure for the sponsors that should help increase revenue.
With regard to the on field product, Scott will bring a fresh perspective. The sub-par quality of the conference's officiating is a major concern for many of the fans and Scott has shown a willingness with the WTA to address such concerns. Scott was head of the WTA when they added shot-spot replay to assist linemen and often spoke about the importance of having the best referees and linesmen possible. There is no reason to believe he won't bring such an outlook to the Pac 10.
We must keep in mind that the conference commission reports to the university presidents. He is not the end all, be all and has limited power so if the presidents are unwilling to change, Scott cannot make them. What Scott can do though is provide a originality and creativity that the conference hasn't had. It is important for a conference commissioner to be forward thinking and then convince the presidents of his plan. A commissioner must be as much of a salesman as he is a visionary.
The Pac 10 office has been old and stale for years now and Scott brings an energy and thought process the conference is in desperate need of. Scott still must prove himself when he takes over on July 1, but he is as qualified as they come. He may not have experience in collegiate sports (outside of his years playing tennis at Harvard), but Scott has experience in matters similar and in a sport that faced challenges not unlike the Pac 10. What's refreshing is not only the choice of Scott, but the comments from various people in the conference who ackowledge the choice of Scott was to bring new thinking to the conference. It seems as if the entire conference is ready to move forward and it will be led by Scott, who seems nothing but the perfect man for the job.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
18 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
good write up
just wondering though, would the creation of a Pac-10 network take away from the possibility of more nationally televised games? I agree that the Pac-10 needs more national exposure, but wouldn’t a Pac-10 exclusive network take away from the small number of nationally televised games we have already?
O.A.
Most likely not
Obviously the conference could choose to go in that direction, but the Big 10 Network has not and I would imagine that the pac 10 would follow in their footsteps if they go ahead with this project. The Big 10 Network still has their national TV games on ESPN, ABC and CBS (between football and basketball), but a good chunk of the rest of the games are on the Big 10 Network. Essentially. instead of games being on ESPN Game Plan or ESPN Full Court, the conference shows games on the Big 10 Network. I would think the pac 10 would show their games on their network instead of the FSN games that are only on the local channel.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 25, 2009 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Free local coverage would be an issue with a Pac-10 network
It’s great to see a new commissioner who understands the media markets so well. Certain concerns emerge with a Pac-10 network, though:
1. Free local coverage may be rare or nonexistent.
2. Donnie Mac and Bill Macdonald might not be part of the broadcasting deal.
Living in Indiana, I have seen the Big Ten Network alienate a lot of viewers. For example, Indiana University games used to be available fairly often on free (non-cable) television, but now they appear only if a national network picks them up for a weekend broadcast. With less readily available and free coverage, it’s harder for the Hoosiers to attract younger fans, and it’s harder for viewers holding out on cable TV to enjoy the occasional game. Many local residents loathe the Big Ten Network for causing a reduction in coverage for non-subscribers. If the Pac-10 were to establish a similar network, it would be helpful for the plan to permit at least occasional coverage of games on a local television station and/or an affiliate of a national broadcast station.
If a Pac-10 network were to form, it would be imperative to get high-quality broadcasters such as the Donnie Mac and Bill Macdonald team. At least with a network, we would be virtually assured of avoiding the blather of Dookie V, Digger Phelps, Billy Packer, Bret Musberger, and the other dregs of the broadcasting world.
One great benefit of a proactive and media-savvy commissioner would be the movement of games to earlier start times. With games beginning at 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. Pacific time, West Coast viewers could still catch the action, and the league would get more exposure among East Coast viewers.
Yeah
In Basketball, the only games on over the air are the national broadcasts on CBS/ABC and the Wooden Classic on KCAL (or CBS). In Football, the only games on over the air are on ABC (except for those rare games at an SEC team or at Notre Dame).
by SuperBruinMan on Mar 27, 2009 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions
there used to be a firetomhansen.com website
In fact using my super internets searching powers, viola! http://web.archive.org/web/20080201060029/http://firetomhansen.com/
Some pretty damning reasons:
—TO PREVENT FUTURE OCCURRENCES OF: WASHINGTON 2000; OREGON 2001; USC 2003; CALIFORNIA 2004; OREGON 2005; ARIZONA STATE 2007
ALTHOUGH HE WILL FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIS POOR PERFORMANCE AS THE CONFERENCE COMMISSIONER, HANSEN NEEDS TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF FOR THE ABOVE OCCURRENCES
(UN)SUSPENDED REFEREES; INCOMPETENT REFEREES THAT DO NOT KNOW THE RULES; CONSISTENTLY POOR VIDEO REPLAY OFFICIALS; REFEREES THAT WAIT THREE MINUTES ON AVERAGE TO MAKE A GAME-CHANGING CALL
—TO PREVENT CONTINUOUS FINANCIAL LOSS AND SUBSTANTIAL LOSS OF REPUTATION DUE TO:
THIRD RATE TELEVISION CONTRACTS (VERSUS, FOX SPORTS NET NOT SHOWING USC-OREGON, ARIZONA STATE-CALIFORNIA, REGIONAL COVERAGE) / EXTREMELY WEAK BOWL ALLIANCES IN UNDESIRABLE LOCATIONS / OVERLOOKED BCS TEAMS
ONLY ONE PAC-10 TEAM IN A NEW YEARS’ DAY BOWL GAME EVERY YEAR
Gee, you’d think the author of that site was a regular here or addicted to quack.
Don't forget 1998
A 9-2 UCLA team which was on a 9 game winning streak (perhaps the hottest team in the country) should have been playing in the Fiesta Bowl. Pac-10 failed to lobby hard enough for UCLA and we ended up getting shipped to the Cotton Bowl.
Tom Hansen
never lobbied for anything at any time anwhere anyhow! Ugh, his tenure’s end will be met with complete jubilation from me.
How could all ten AD’s just blindly go along with this guy? How can not a single AD publicly call this inept stooge out??
by Seanny Rotten on Mar 29, 2009 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions
It's not done in academia
It takes a cataclysmic event for anyone in academia to point an academic finger at athletics. Think of the outrage you saw exhibited by the “academics” at justsc over all the things associated with the athletic department at that institution. Exactly zero. Same thing with academic administrators and criticism of other administrators. You have never seen it and I doubt if you ever will. It’s too much of “there but for the grace of [insert any academically acceptable word other than God] go I.”
If there were a two party system in academia, maybe things would be different. I would love to see what the loyal opposition to Hanson would have been saying through the years.
Spitballing Ideas
and I have no idea if they are viable options or not – as I am not someone in “the know.” Has he spoken to the subject of expansion – Whether it be the Utah schools or others? I ask because I am wondering if expansion would help create leverage with TV companies or bowl commitees. Would expanding to 12 teams help with the negotiations due to expanding geographical interest in conference with expansion of another state or two and the addition of a Pac championship game in football?
I am not convinced (although leaning) that more is better but I am curious as to whether it would help if expansion at the same time the current tv deals are expiring would help with getting a better deal.
Outfielders For Sale! This weeks special...GMJ - see Tony for details!
It's doubtful that it would help much
Expansion could be great for the conference, but only with the ideal candidates and the conference has little to no chance at those candidates. Ignoring all of the competitive disadvantages of expansion (end of round robin, no more Thursday- Saturday basketball schedule, etc.) the conference would only benefit from expansion if they expand with the right schools. First, the conference requires that members be research institutions so that eliminates some candidates. The candidates must compete in enough sports and excel in both of the major sports. Our options are basically Utah/BYU or Colorado/Colorado St. The Salt Laje City market wouldn’t bring in enough revenue to offset the new members who would force the conference to split revenue 12 ways instead of 10. The Denver market is an intriguing one, but Colorado St. isn’t worthy of inclusion. San Diego would be a great market, but San Diego St. isn’t an option. Any expansion would have to center around Texas with either Texas and Colorado joining or Texas and Texas A&M. I don’t think Texas is interested so as a conference we have no expansion interests.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 25, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Hmmm
So Utah and Colorado to Pac and TCU to Big 12…See – that was easy.
All joking aside, thanks for shedding a little more light on the req and possibilities for expansion. I agree that its only worth expandidng if done right with the right schools vs doing it just for the sake of expanding (and there is no way Texas leaves Big 12).
Outfielders For Sale! This weeks special...GMJ - see Tony for details!
Excellent post
Thanks for laying out all of these issues. Certainly read more here than anywhere else.
I’d like to see more ESPN coverage of Pac-10 basketball, but I don’t want to see the conference change the schedule around at a whim to fit a network schedule—I like the Thursday/Saturday schedule, and I think it’s kind of a joke when a team plays on a different day every week because of TV, plus I think it helps establish a rhythm.
by Westwood Wizard on Mar 25, 2009 11:29 AM PDT reply actions
I agree
Though it would be nice to have more games on ESPN, I don’t think our conference should be begging ESPN to be on one of their channels. Besides, ESPN2 and ESPNU are more likely than not where our games would land.
And there are already a lot of conferences on ESPN taking up a lot of timeslots, so I don’t think ESPN is waiting to shell out big money to have us. They’ll take us at their price, especially if we’re acting desparate.
FSN/Pac 10
I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I think maybe a potentially solid move might be for the Pac-10 to take an ownership stake in FSN. It wouldn’t be exclusively our own network, but the Pac-10 would become its major player. In addition, many cable channels already include the Fox Sports Pacific (FSP), Fox Sports Central (FSC), and Fox Sports Something Else channels for extra games—and I’m not sure any of you watch those channels, but FSP is essentially the Pac-10 network during basketball and football season. In other words—if FSP just added more games and more sports—we’d already have a Pac-10 channel in place.
The problem with FSN is that not as many people watch the channel. But to me, it’s a marketing and investment issue, not an availability issue. FSN goes everywhere ESPN goes—and FSN has more channels around the country than ESPN when you start looking around on direct tv. If the Pac-10 rolls over for ESPN, that might be nice in the short term. But ultimately, ESPN will have all the control (and since we are the ones who WANT to be on ESPN, we have less leverage). I know it is ambitious, but I would infinitely rather have the Pac-10 and FSN work together to improve FSN to compete with ESPN. We could have a Pac-10 channel on FSN as well.
I don’t know—it’s just important to me that we aren’t begging to be on ESPN. OUR CONFERENCE WILL NEVER BE THEIR BABY—we’ll always be second fiddle on that network. And Steve Lavin would be doing all our games—you can count on it.
FSN would never go for it
They’re local sports channels that cater to local markets. Why would FSN Florida want the Pac 10 to have a share of it? It makes much more sense to do what the Big 10 has done and create a Pac 10 network that is 51% owned by the conference and 49% owned by Fox Sports. Fox Sports then operates the channel and the channel gets billed as the Pac 10 Network, giving the conference much needed exposure.
Also, FSN doesn’t get nearly the exposure that ESPN does. When ESPN shows a games, everyone in the nation gets it. When FSN shows a game, even if its a national game, everyone in the nation gets it so long as their local FSN channel doesn’t have another obligation to the NBA, MLB, NHL or whatever other teams they have in the area,
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Mar 26, 2009 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions
What is the PAC-10 Commisioner's Role
in the investigations of possble NCAA violations by member schools? Will this guy be more or less likely to come down hard on the big money programs?
You're in luck, snork, because I happen to know the exact answer to your question.
The Pac 10 commissioner’s role is laid out in section 3.1 et seq of the Pac 10 by-laws. He is issued a shovel, and told exactly where the sand is located. Then he (or his assistant, per section 3.1.2) digs a hole. The commissioner puts his head in it, fills in the sand all around, and then looks around. Any violations noted are then assigned to a committee, which will meet on alternate Memorial Days. A report is mandated within six years of any report of any violation. It is then turned over to the ncaa for further review.
So we can expect lots of action.
I think you're a little bit mistaken or incomplete on two counts
1) There’s a lot of debate over whether looking around (after burial) includes head movement or just eye movement. Any investigations by the commissioner have been temporarily suspended until this issue is resolved.
2) The 6 year rule is not for the report that is sent to the NCAA. It is for the report that is sent by the recommendation committee to the decision committee. The decision committee than has an additional 3 years to send a report to the action* committee. The action* committee is really just the recommendation committee with a different postal address, and then the two committees debate the decision committee’s changes to the recommendation report, until a final resolution has been made (within an additional 5 years). This resolution is then put into a bottle and thrown into the middle of the ocean. The NCAA will take action if and only if an independent party finds the bottle on the beach of a foreign country and delivers the resolution (within 10 days of signing) to their corporate office.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
