clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Lack of (imaginative) leadership at the top of PAC-10

So I was reading CNNSI's Stewart Mandel's College Football Mailbag, and this particular Q&A Stewart had with a fan caught my attention:

I think the Pac-10 deserves a big kudos for mandating its teams' 12th game be an intra-conference matchup. Why the other conferences don't insist on this is beyond me. A Texas-North Texas game holds no interest for me, but getting a Big 12 North team such as Nebraska on the Longhorns' schedule more often would appeal to me a lot. Do you see any chance that the other BCS conferences will follow the Pac 10's lead?
--Dennis, Austin, Texas

Oh, there's a chance. But it's about the same chance Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo has of being funny. One thing you have to understand is that the Pac-10 in general has much more of a traditionalist mentality than the other conferences. That's because its commissioner, Tom Hansen, albeit one of the nicest guys in the business, is older than Moses.

I'm not trying to be mean, folks -- it's true. According to his official bio, Hansen began working for what would later become the Pac-10 in 1960. I'm not even sure some of the conference's states had been discovered yet. Also, the move makes more sense for the Pac-10 because of its number of teams. It can now play a true round-robin schedule. Even if the SEC or Big 12 added a ninth conference game, there would still be two teams each year the schools wouldn't face, and since those leagues have title games, they don't have the same concern about co-champions. So, while the Pac-10's decision certainly benefits its fans, it will definitely hurt some of its teams' coffers, because most of their ACC/Big Ten/Big 12/SEC counterparts are going to be using their extra games to bag an extra home date.
This doesn't surprise me at all.  I have never been fan of Tom Hansen.  While it seems that commissioners from other power conferences are always vigorously lobbying for the best interests of their marquee teams, Hansen often has done nothing but putting up lukewarm advocacy effort on behalf of the PAC.  How many Bruin fans remember the 1998 regular season.  We were 9-2, had reeled of 9 straight wins which started with the 66-3 throttling of the Cowpokes down at Austin, and we lost out on the Rose Bowl bid, because of Toledo's brain cramp in the last series during the first game against the Cougs.  We were on fire and should have been going to the Sugar Bowl or Fiesta Bowl.  Instead teams like Kansas State and freaking Syracuse was picked up for the BCS bid, while we had slum it down at the Cotton Bowl.  There was no concerted campaign type of effort from Peter Dalis (well we all knew he was a worthless stooge) and Tom Hansen.

Hansen's lack of intensity was again pretty evident this last bowl season, when Rose Bowl (because of Mack Brown and co's intense lobbying effort) picked up Texas over Cal.  Poor Tedford was all alone flailing away arguing for Cal.

Also, why do the Pac-10 have such horrible TV deals in both football and basketball, despite having great teams in both sports.  There is no leadership, no creative or imaginative thinking whatsoever coming from the top.  So what you get is a general sense of malaise when you watch these game through boring and stale coverage via the current deal with Fox.  Oh well ... at least in football ... this is more of an issue for teams, that will actually be contending this season and beyond.  We have other pressing issues besides Hansen.  But Hansen's ineffectiveness in providing aggressive leadership is not exactly help us in hoops - a sports we are going to be a major factor once again this year and beyond. Just something to think about.