Larry Scott’s Hasty & Not So Well Thought Out Moves To Expand Pac-10
by Nestor on Jun 18, 2010 9:07 AM PDT
in Football
Email
Print
The more I read about Larry Scott's expansion moves the more it appears that his decision to take in both Colorado and Utah were desperate moves to settle after striking out with Texas. Per Scott's own remarks it appears he made the move without taking into considerations of members of his own conference. From Lya Wodraska's "Ute Sports" blog in the Salt Lake Tribune (emphasis added throughout):
"I am getting all kinds of proposals," he said. "I don't think we need to look at a lot of models and I don't think we've given our members a chance to express all the considerations they have. "This is all, especially lately, things happened quickly in a very tight way without a lot of consultation from a lot of people, but there is no reason this next step can't. As to whether we do a football championship or go and have divisions, there is no reason we can't have deep and full consultations with our membership, including Utah."
That brings up all kinds of unanswered questions. Again one has to wonder exactly what kind of authority Presidents of Pac-10 schools - that would be Gene Block - gave to Larry Scott for making decisions with ramifications of changing long standing traditions of this conference.
It seems pretty apparent that Scott was intent on going something along the silly North-South plan that would disrupt the core games among California schools. More from that "Ute Sports" blog in the Salt Lake Tribune:
Colorado and Utah definitely will be travel partners, he said.
"Absolutely, that is the DNA of the Pac-10," he said. "There were five natural travel partners and now there will be six."
That essentially implies that Colorado and Utah will be in the same division. If that is the case Scott will be breaking up at least one natural rivalry within the conference. At least two schools will be unhappy campers no matter what happens at this point.
If North-South division prevails keeping Colorado and Utah in the same division at least one original rivalry is going to be disrupted. While if Colorado is put in any other division not featuring Southern California schools, it is possible that Colorado administrators are going to feel the Scott was being a little too slick during the expansion related negotiations. This is not exactly the most healthy way to expand a conference. It certainly doesn't appear all that well thought out (per Scott's own comments above).
Ted Miller from ESPN, who is the network's shill reporter for the Pac-10 conference is of course working over time to spin this move as a positive one. Here is his "analysis" on this north-south split:
It makes regional sense. It maintains travel partners. Further -- and this is more important than some might think -- as divisional "brands," North and South are easy to figure out. A person in, say, Maine would immediately be able to name which Pac-12 team is in which division. Or put it this way: Name the six teams in the ACC's "Coastal" division. Understand?
"Regional sense"? Guess Miller didn't major in geography while attending University Of Richmond.
Anyway, Scot's comments signal he really didn't put a lot of considerations and thoughts into the interest of the existing Pac-10 members in his straight line pursuit of TV dollars (which of course he still needs to deliver). If UCLA and other California school ensures that the long standing games are not broken up, Scott will end up making at least couple of schools unhappy, which will be detrimental to the long standing health of this stable conference.
At this point our beef is not with Utah or its fans. They are in the conference. So welcome to them. However, we should be wary about what has been happening under Larry Scott. Lot of folks are anxious to kiss his rear end because he has shown a sign of pulse unlike the previous regime. That is just not going enough. When Scott came aboard, our main concern was what he was going to do boost our TV contract while also maintaining the core identity of the conference.
It is unclear whether just adding Colorado and Utah will substantially boost our TV revenues. It is unclear whether revenue intake per school is going to dramatically increase in the coming years (thankfully Utah is being forced to come in as unequal partners because their inability to bring much to the conference table). It is unclear whether adding Utah was a must after the conference added Colorado.
Scott has not answered any of those questions in a satisfactory manner and he has admitted that he didn't take into account considerations of the members schools or how details of a 12-team expansion plan would work out. So there are lot of reasons to be skeptical of the current state of the Conference. If Scott doesn't come up with the money and results in next 5 years, he should be shown the door back to the tennis circuits.
GO BRUINS.
58 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Carte Blanche?
I’m wondering just how “done” this deal is.
Can Scott do whatever he wants or must here be some form of consent from the teams new and old?
Did our conference and UT and CU let this happen without any agreements on how it would be implemented?
Is there a path out if the majority of the members are not happy?
Who makes any kind of a deal with so many open contingencies and so few answers? Ma and Pa would not sell their corner store with so few particulars and no way out. I can’t believe a conference with so much at stake would.
sjh
Unless Scott retracts and explains his comments
Right now it looks like he operated without really thinking through various scenarios. Not very sophisticated for someone who has been hyped as a savvy CEO.
Natural Rivalries
If that is the case Scott will be breaking up at least one natural rivalry within the conference.
If he does a strictly geographic division of North vs South (Cali + AZ in south, NW + newbs in north) does this break up rivalries? (Honestly, outside of Oregon/Washington, I can’t seem to think of any natural rivalries in the Pac-10 that aren’t of the cross-town/state rivalries)
Go Bruins!
Washington and Oregon seem to be rivals
Or at least their fans hate each other.
by SuperBruinMan on Jun 18, 2010 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Correct
None of the natural rivalries would be broken up under either of the North/South plans. The main rivalries affected would potentially be the intrastate California rivalries, which are not the ‘natural rivalries’ Scott means. There are definitely cross-state rivalries – Oregon and Washington in football, UCLA and Arizona in basketball – but the core rivalries would remain intact.
At this point, I think it’s a whole lot of bluster about nothing. Cal-Stanford-UCLA-USC are the most powerful voices in the conference and whatever is ultimately decided regarding divisions is sure to accomodate the California schools’ collective interest.
by JoeBruin9900 on Jun 18, 2010 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Well it seems rather clear to me that basketball was barely a token consideration with this realignment. It seems like less of a concern when you have a champion determined by an actual NCAA tournament.
Anyhow, look forward to understanding how the Pac-∞ ends up aligning. And hopefully not being too bitter at the result.
Go Bruins!
Disagree w/ N
There is one way to split the conference into two divisions without splitting any of the natural rivalry traveling pairs:
North: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Colorado
South: UCLA, U$C, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State
Everyone keeps their natural rivalry together and the even the secondary rivalry games stay together (UCLA-Cal, U$C-Cal, UCLA-Stanford, U$C-Stanford, Washington-Oregon).
Moreover, it’s the natural and geographically correct way to divide the conference. Anything other division scheme would be contrived at best.
Scott- case study in hysterical under-achievement
How likely is it that when Scott took over as commissioner, item one on his “To Do” list was “Do whatever it takes to get Colorado and Utah in our conference.” That seems unlikely. In fact, I think it’s unlikely that he had “conference expansion” anywhere on his list. That arose one morning when Texas started its master manipulation. (And it was masterful, wasn’t it? I think the whole Texas scenario must have been handled by the Music Department, because they played the rest of the NCAA and the TV like fine violins.) Instead of reacting with calmness, Scott paniced and went berserk. He flew all over the country (literally, I am told) and had deals being made because if we didn’t make a deal to expand the world would come to an end. (I picture Scott just like the little blond girl in the famous YouTube clip who is in tears because of all the bad things being said about Brittany (sp?) Spears.)
So this is out new commissioner. His first deal turns out to be the flop of the century. He was given all the power anyone could want. He was the head of a great conference that was the envy of many. He had basically one charge, and that was to improve our TV deal. His achievement, after all this, was to announce his new creation — the Edsel.
Nice work, Larry.
I guess the good part is that once again we have a graphic demonstration that Coach was a wise man. Just about any of Coach’s admonitions would have applied to our commissioner’s actions, and all were ignored.
hysterical revisionist history
Fox, while I appreciate your posts as much as any poster on BN (anger/cynicism wrapped in humor, rather than just anger/cynicism), some of what you say here is rewriting the record as to this whole process:
In fact, I think it’s unlikely that he had "conference expansion" anywhere on his list. That arose one morning when Texas started its master manipulation.
Conference expansion has been on the agenda for months, and was discussed here at great length. Colorado was always seen as the best team to bring in, with the other TBD (though many valid arguments were made against various contenders for the other spot).
Spinning the current situation as “Scott got punked by UT” seems silly. Before the Big12 breakup was on the cards, expansion with Colorado and (probably) Utah was an option. I get that not everyone thinks this is worthwhile – and I myself am in that camp, I would prefer the Pac-10 to the new Pac-12 and doubt the overriding value of a ‘championship game’ – but expansion was clearly on the Scott agenda before the Big12 thing.
by britishbruin on Jun 18, 2010 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions
"His first deal turns out to be the flop of the century."
No, his first big deal for the conference was adding the Alamo Bowl to our bowl lineup which was pretty much universally seen as a big coup for the conference.
Scott has an incredibly successful track record in the sports industry. I have full faith that this was well thought out and not some knee jerk reaction to the Texas situation. And long term I see this as being a strong move for the conference
I aggre with Coach Gundy
I like OSU’s coach Gundy’s thoughts about eliminating divisions.
Take the six "natural pairs" and every year have different Group As and Group Bs.
That supplies ten years of groupings.
Each team would play five games against their group and one of each pair in the other group for eight league games.
UCLA would play Stanford AND Cal four out of ten years, and one of them the other six years. There would be a road trip to the bay area seven out of ten years.
An interesting idea
It would also mean you could potentially have any two teams face each other at some point in a conference championship game (if we have to make one) except for natural rivals, as they would be the only person you were grouped with 100% of the time. If some sort of alignment is necessary, I kinda like this idea.
Is it a must
to have two divisions in the conference? That is only needed if the goal is to have a conference championship game, which I hate. Can’t we just leave the conference without divisions?
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Crazy idea
And to follow up on yesterday’s thread and answer rickramz’s question,
To recap, how about no divisions, but each region plays it’s rival (e.g. UCLA vs. USC) plus teams from 3 other set regions (7 games) plus 2 other conference games (9 conference games total)? At the end of the season the #1 and #2 teams play each other for the championship.
Here are some potential groups (I think everyone is represented the appropriate # of times):
LA: BA, COL, AZ
BA: LA. AZ, ORE
AZ: LA, BA, WASH
ORE: BA, COL, WASH
WASH: ORE, AZ, COL
COL: LA, ORE, WASH
BA=bay area; COL=Colo/Utah
Obviously, this isn’t perfect (WASH/AZ have to travel a little farther and many teams lose an annual presence in LA), but there will be bitching and moaning no matter how this shakes out. And Colorado gets to play in LA every year, which is what they seem to think they’ve been promised. This wouldn’t have been my first choice of options, but I’m just trying to work with the hand we’re dealt – I find it unacceptable that I wouldn’t be able to see my Bruins up here on an annual basis.
I realize this is unorthodox, but why the hell not?
by Nocal Bruin on Jun 18, 2010 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
If you're going to play nine games
then wouldn’t it be feasable to play all five teams in your division, two games against teams that are always on your schedule, and alternate playing one team from each of the two remaining “natural pairs” of teams?
For example, since UCLA/USC vs CAL/STANFORD are rivalry games, UCLA could play CU, Utah, USC, ASU, Arizona, Stanford, and Cal every year and then alternate games against Oregon/OSU and Washington/WSU. Each “natural pair” from one division would have an corresponding one from the other division which would always be on it’s schedule (let’s say the washington schools and the arizona schools with the oregon schools getting the new guys). This way we could always play our rivals and would get to play every team at least once every other year.
That seems the most likely option
the problem being that the athletic directors (or at lest their football coaches) want to change back to an 8-game schedule. My guess is that the California schools will end up pushing for a compromise along those lines – keep the 9-game schedule, with 5 games in-division, 2 games against a permanent out of division pairing (Cal/Stanford for us/sc), and 2 games alternated against the other 4 teams from the other division.
formerly bruinhoo
Hopefully
someone will come up with some figures showing that 9 conference games and 3 ooc games makes more money in tv revenues than 8 conference and 4 ooc games.
Actually ...
Nine games provides the PAC 10 with 54 conference games and 36 non conference games, at least 20 of which they will have the rights to.
Eight games provides the PAC 10 with 48 conferences games and 48 non conference games. This is more games total and more games against teams outside of the PAC 10 to prove the PAC 10’s metal.
Another factor is the rankings. In a conference game one of the teams must lose. By playing eight games instead of nine the PAC 10 can outsource some of those losses.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
Outsourcing the losses
is one way to look at it. I’d rather keep some wins in the conference by having Wazzu and ASU play everyone…
The 12-Pac gets more games with an eight game conference schedule but splits revenues from the ooc games with other conferences right? I’m sure extra games will be against patsies and the revenue split is not equal but it’s not quite the same as having a full six extra games is it?
Yeah - that does make sense
Had not thought of that. Relatively speaking, my scheme is needlessly complicated.
At the end of the day, as long as the Bruins are up here every year, I don’t really give a rat’s arse how it goes down.
It's all about money
and having a conference championship game adds enough revenue to make it something very attractive to those who are making the decisions.
more money for conference but split more ways
yes we get some money from a championship game, but have to split our revenue with two teams who don’t bring so much to the table.
by britishbruin on Jun 18, 2010 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions
It all depends on the numbers
that we unfortunately do not have. Because Utah will be an unequal partner hopefully they won’t simply be the Baylor of the 12-Pac. An added conference championship game could also draw more attention to the 12-Pac and more attention is a good thing unless you are USC.
Before the Bevo Blowout.......
When the talk of conference expansion was first broached awhile back, it centered on the inclusion of Colorado and Utah. There was quite a discussion on BN about the benifits and liabilities of each institution and on expansion itself. But the conversation was centered on CU and Uof U, not Texas and the five dwarfs.
Somewhere along the way the idea of pirating the Big 12 Southern Division was never mention or discussed. All the talk was about Colorado and Utah. I think the Commish jumped at the chance of having a super conference since it would strengthen his hand with the Networks. He played for a inside straight and drew bad cards. Now it’s back to the orginal plan right from the start.
People seem to have short memories. This was the original plan from the get go. I’ll leave it up to the TV media experts as to what SLC and Boulder bring to the table. As for me I’m a purist and love the Pac-10 they way it was. In fact I loved the old Pac-8 but that just shows my age. Hell give me the old AAWU and the serpetine huddle.
Agreed that he talk of CU and Utah had been going back for quite some time. Not sure if that was before Scott’s time, but it was months and months before poaching the Big 12 even became a reality, so I’m not sure we can claim at all this was a reactionary process
Yes we can claim this was a reactionary process
If it appears there wasn’t a lot of thought into it.
If there was thought not put into it, it was by the various schools Presidents. They voted to give Scott the power to pursue several options, which he did.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Welcome to the fray, jt
I think you give much too much credit to college presidents. I’m not moved. My guess is that those guys have institutional “inside the box” thinking that when (if?) they gave Scott carte blanche to do whatever he wanted, they assumed that what he wanted to do was business as usual.
In retrospect, I think what really bugged me about the process is that Scott seemed to buy hook line and sinker what anyone would say. Hasn’t he ever noticed that the car commercials on TV always say, “But hurry – this sale won’t last forever.” Larry, the sales do in fact last forever. Basically every product sold or advertised on TV is on sale or new and improved. It seems to me that Larry thought every word everyone said was telling him that the sale had to be done RIGHT NOW. I suppose I’ll never know what really happened. I do know that I don’t want to play poker or anything else with the guy handling Texas’s deal.
And even back then
most on here (myself included) were basically against the idea, unless someone could show us concrete evidence ahead of time that it would be a benefit to UCLA and the other 8 amateur schools in the conference.
In the immortal words of the pin I got while an undergrad: Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
The talk of adding CU and Utah has gone back for quite some time, but only in dog years
The idea dates back to last weekend, as I recall.
Quite a bit further actually
This post is from July 2, 2006 and specifically addresses the issue of adding Colorado and one other team (with Utah as a possibility).
I forgot that post, if I ever saw it
But really, it’s a Big 12 writer from KC (my former home town) speculating on getting rid of Colorado and someone else. I didn’t notice any names popping up from the Pac 10 as being enamored of either expanding or expanding with those specific teams. I would like to speculate that just$c* would look eastward, and the ACC is beckoning. That doesn’t mean it’s in the works.
I don’t know if you’re getting your JD or you got your JD, but take a look at Evidence Code section 1200. It’s the hearsay rule. I object to the speculation from the KC Star on hearsay grounds (but only because I can’t remember the code sections for lacks foundation or calls for speculation.)
Don't make stuff up
We have always been intrigued with Colorado but never cared much for Utah. It’s not us who have “short memories,” it is you looking completely ignorant about over all body of work in terms of our discussion on this issue.
It’s you piping in here without knowing the kind of conversation we had on BN. Perhaps you should read up a little more carefully before making stuff up like that again.
He's just saying Utah wasn't pulled out of a hat
I don’t think he was implying that people were all pro-Utah up until this past week.
The idea of adding Utah wasn’t a knee-jerk reaction basically, but I think we would all argue that the manner in which it happened was a knee-jerk reaction.
yup
Not even clear that the ‘be quick, but don’t hurry’ maxim applies, because there was no obvious need for us even to act quickly in this case.
Reactionary timing, not reactionary idea per se.
by britishbruin on Jun 18, 2010 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions
an interesting thing here
is the question of what authority was given to Scott, and how important (or not) it was to act quickly and decisively. It seems that the decision that expansion was necessary was made by the Pac-10 schools and authority given to Scott to make it happen. It seems like the offer to Colorado was made at the same time as the Nebraska Big 10 offer in order to put maximum pressure on the Big 12, but with the contingency of adding another team if the Big 12 deal fell through.
If it was decided that a 12-team “Colorado + 1” was preferable to the status quo, then as soon as the Colorado offer was made, ‘the die were cast’.
We might question the speed of the Utah offer – as has been said multiple times, they were not going anywhere – and wonder why they didn’t have all details worked out in advance. But if the Pac-10 ADs, Chancellors etc were worried about scheduling problems for the 12 team division, they should have been the ones giving Scott some groundrules about what he could and couldn’t do.
Scott is presumably looking at one thing – the bottom line. If the schools wanted to place additional qualifications on what would happen in the event of expansion, that is up to them. If we end up with disruption of traditional rivalries, and this is of huge negative impact, then I think the blame is properly directed at Block/Guerrero and their counterparts.
If expansion turns out to be a flop financially (and rivalry disruption might be part of this), then Scott should be fired. This is yet to be determined.
by britishbruin on Jun 18, 2010 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah I think that makes sense to me
This is key:
What authority was given to Scott, and how important (or not) it was to act quickly and decisively.
seems a bit to me
like Congress giving the President the authority to make Trade Agreements with other countries – for him to be able to negotiate a deal he needs to be able to tell people he can make it happen, rather than “let me go back and see whether the Senator from Iowa wants to stick a clause about restrictions on foreign potato imports into this”.
Questions like satisfying everyone’s ideal scheduling desires may fall into the category of things that would make it difficult to ever agree on an expansion.
by britishbruin on Jun 18, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
In that scenario
Congress still has to ratify the treaties President enter into. Wish we had that option available to Pac-10 schools in this case.
Is it clear we don't have that power?
I understand that it would not be fair to CU to leave it hanging — but has anyone seen anything that indicates that Scott was given the clear authority to make deals that did not have to be ratified, in any way, by the schools in the conference?
Or, was there a vote on each team we invited?
Or, were certain options, including CU AND UT, pre-ratified?
It appears that some, if not all, of the Big 12 schools had to meet AFTER the deal was put in place, to approve it. I think some discussions actually involved regents.
I’ve asked the same question over and over and it appears that there is no answer (not faulting any of us for not being able to answer it — and my meager searches have not turned anything up) — exactly what power was given Scott, and is there no way to say “no” if we are not happy with the final selections or divisions?
sjh
I really doubt that there is any backing out at this point
Just think how bad the conference would look if we were to say “no” now. We’ve officially invited two schools into the fold and they have officially accepted and given notice to their current conferences that they are leaving. To back out now would at the very least make the conference look like its in complete disarray and destroy any credibility that the conference has. At worst, it could put the conference (and in turn the member schools) on the hook for a lot of money in damages if we were to back out and CU and Utah sued for a breach of contract.
you make a good point
there is still an up-or-down vote by Congress, but no amendments/haggling allowed.
I’m going to ahead and claim that “seems a bit to me” was an acknowledgment of the weakness of the analogy… and that it least provoked a good comment or two. :-)
by britishbruin on Jun 19, 2010 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
As far as authority is concerned
here is a link to an article where Scott states he was given authority.
An excerpt from the article (a direct quote from Scott):
"I had authority from the presidents and chancellors and for several scenarios and got approval for this. These conversations have been going on for a few months. There has been long-standing interest in the University (of Utah) and specifically since the beginning of June. I think we will see things settling down nationally now, but I think things will get back to a new normalcy."
link
sorry
here is the link
http://usc.ocregister.com/2010/06/17/pac-10-expansion-scott-we-are-done/41625/
Thanks
Couldn’t open the link.
Wondering what the “this” is in “approval for this”.
Was it for the divisions he proposed? Putting Colorado in the South?
I wonder how specific it got. Did he propose the Big 12 scenario with a fall back to CU and UT?
And, I’d love to know the representations he made about money that got him the approval for what he did.
sjh
Come on, 66
It’s $20 million per school per year. A couple of years of this and we’re talking about some real money.
it seems plausible
that “several scenarios” included the Colorado/Utah option specifically, but maybe not the exact way it would be scheduled? May also not have been “we’ll try X first, then Y, then Z as the fallback”, but an agreement that several different scenarios were superior to the status quo.
Assuming he had several scenarios to present, it’s likely he wouldn’t have gone into too much detail on logistics, and focused on the financial ‘projections’…
by britishbruin on Jun 19, 2010 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions
First, thanks for the warm welcome for my team.
Seriously though I have enjoyed the banter here where I could always find an anti expansion voice to temper my Utah to the PAC 10 meme for years.
To prove that Utah is not an all encompassing evil on the PAC 10 I will offer a potential plan to sort out the division mess. Actually I assessed the merits of three designs, but will discuss my favorite here.
The idea is to use the North-South division design but rotate the California schools between the north and south divisions. The California schools would play a full round robin every year using two crossover games. With an eight game schedule this leaves one crossover game to cycle home and away games with the other 8 teams over 16 years (A multiple of 16 may be needed to work out some complications with this design). With a nine game schedule this design packs nicely into an eight year cycle.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
thanks, Utes
but your link seems broken?
by britishbruin on Jun 19, 2010 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I do like your plan
the idea that the Washington/Oregon schools should have a full round robin, CA schools have a full round robin, and the AZ/NEW schools should round robin, makes a ton of sense, both from a rivalry and travel perspective.
Unfortunately, while it is formally elegant, I highly doubt anyone will go for it due to its (surface level) complexity.
by britishbruin on Jun 19, 2010 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
I think university presidents and AD's
can understand long term games per year. They will be the ones who make the call. I will include a copy of a nine game per season schedule so they can actually look at it.
An eight game schedule is a bit more difficult and I would need to get paid to work on it further.
BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
