Is Larry Scott to blame for Pac-12 football and basketball sucking?

6,582 Views | 35 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by calumnus
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?

calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:





Pretty much spot on. Money is the biggest issue and Scott has squandered it. I would also blame Scott for the refereeing problems and the bowl tie ins. The PAC-12 and the Rose Bowl had clout and it was given away for nothing. Obviously there are other factors but Scott has been a huge negative.
calbear80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did Larry Scott hire Williams, Jones and Helton? I must have missed that day's news.

Go Bears!
petalumabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear80 said:

Did Larry Scott hire Williams, Jones and Helton? I must have missed that day's news.

Go Bears!
LOL 80 .... you are a broken record but that was funny....
BearBones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More piling on Scott...

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/2019/03/canzano-the-view-from-the-pac-12-conferences-imperial-palace-lacks-visibility.html
UCBerkGrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It would be easy to blame Scott, but he's not the reason the conference sucks at football and basketball now. You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue for the schools or the inability to hire great coaches or not being able to recruit elite athletes.

That's on the schools themselves, their administration and the coaches.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UCBerkGrad said:

You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.
UCBerkGrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

UCBerkGrad said:

You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.
But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UCBerkGrad said:

sycasey said:

UCBerkGrad said:

You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.
But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?
More importantly...

Are the P12 schools worse off from a revenue standpoint relative to their P5 peers since Scott took over?

The answer is a resounding YES.
Hail2Calif
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

UCBerkGrad said:

sycasey said:

UCBerkGrad said:

You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.
But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?
More importantly...

Are the P12 schools worse off from a revenue standpoint relative to their P5 peers since Scott took over?

The answer is a resounding YES.



Exactly. For instance, if it's true the Pac-12 teams are only getting approx 2MM from the Pac-12 Network (according to the article), then the schools automatically are millions and millions behind schools from other P5 conferences with their own networks

Once could say "well, that's 2MM more than they would be getting" - but other conferences are showing that there are other ways to run their networks such that 2MM would be an unacceptably poor return
UCBerkGrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

UCBerkGrad said:

sycasey said:

UCBerkGrad said:

You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.
But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?
More importantly...

Are the P12 schools worse off from a revenue standpoint relative to their P5 peers since Scott took over?

The answer is a resounding YES.

Meaning the schools were better off before they had the P12N?
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UCBerkGrad said:

71Bear said:

UCBerkGrad said:

sycasey said:

UCBerkGrad said:

You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.
But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?
More importantly...

Are the P12 schools worse off from a revenue standpoint relative to their P5 peers since Scott took over?

The answer is a resounding YES.

Meaning the schools were better off before they had the P12N?


Not when inflation in salaries for top coaches (due to the even greater television revenues at our P5 competition) is taken into account.
UCBerkGrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

UCBerkGrad said:

71Bear said:

UCBerkGrad said:

sycasey said:

UCBerkGrad said:

You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.
But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?
More importantly...

Are the P12 schools worse off from a revenue standpoint relative to their P5 peers since Scott took over?

The answer is a resounding YES.

Meaning the schools were better off before they had the P12N?


Not when inflation in salaries for top coaches (due to the even greater television revenues at our P5 competition) is taken into account.
Is the conference worse off in this department? Pac-12 has 4 of the top-23 highest paid coaches.

https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/sports/highest-paid-college-basketball-coaches-14774331
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buh.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bear19 said:

Buh.
That's who I blame.
btsktr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UCBerkGrad said:

calumnus said:

UCBerkGrad said:

71Bear said:

UCBerkGrad said:

sycasey said:

UCBerkGrad said:

You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue
Part of the revenue issues are because of the P12 Network though.
But are the schools worse off from a revenue standpoint that they were prior to the launch of the network?
More importantly...

Are the P12 schools worse off from a revenue standpoint relative to their P5 peers since Scott took over?

The answer is a resounding YES.

Meaning the schools were better off before they had the P12N?


Not when inflation in salaries for top coaches (due to the even greater television revenues at our P5 competition) is taken into account.
Is the conference worse off in this department? Pac-12 has 4 of the top-23 highest paid coaches.

https://www.thestreet.com/lifestyle/sports/highest-paid-college-basketball-coaches-14774331
Here is the list that SI published 2 days ago.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2019/03/12/john-calipari-ncaa-coaches-salaries-list-kentucky-krzyzewski-izzo

Here is my count: ACC 4, Big 10 4, Big 12 5, SEC 4, Pac 12 1. So based on this we are lagging far behind.

Wilner had an article that shows that the network is under performing Scott's worst case revenue scenario he laid out at its inception.
Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Once could say "well, that's 2MM more than they would be getting" - but other conferences are showing that there are other ways to run their networks such that 2MM would be an unacceptably poor return.

Exactly. a contract with ESPN or Fox woulda easily yielded that kinda cash -- and more -- without the overhead of a production studio.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My take is that the P12Net/Scott cannot be blamed for most of the football issues, if looking at it from a pure revenue perspective. Donation/Ticket revenue is so great in the top football programs that it just dominates the TV money. We are talking $100+ million yearly at Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan etc.

More P12N money would help, sure just a bit, but not a lot - it's not bridging that huge revenue gap. P12N games on a more regional tier doesn't help exposure, but lets be real - all but a slight few of those games are likely not watched outside the the footprint anyway. The big games go on the primary TV contract. (Now if you want to look at the effect of the night games and 12/6 day holds - that could kill more revenue in the future as people give up coming to games. But that will affect other conferences too as they also have night games and 12/6 day holds.)

When it comes to basketball, I think it does make a significant difference. Firstly, the sports' per school revenues are nowhere near football levels for almost all hoops programs across the country. So extra money can bridge the gap especially for mid tier teams. There are also so many games that the P12N would be a good avenue for exposure. But then again, I doubt the rating would be that great even if carried for free nationally.

The Big Ten and SEC are sitting on piles of TV cash. They can pump that into non-rev sports. We might even ironically see those conferences start to dominate some of the non-rev sports more using the money from the FB TV contracts - while the P12 squanders money broadcasting non-rev sports to audiences of virtually no actual viewers.

Now from a PR perspective, it's just looking really bad. Lots of just stupid things.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

My take is that the P12Net/Scott cannot be blamed for most of the football issues, if looking at it from a pure revenue perspective. Donation/Ticket revenue is so great in the top football programs that it just dominates the TV money. We are talking $100+ million yearly at Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan etc.

More P12N money would help, sure just a bit, but not a lot - it's not bridging that huge revenue gap. P12N games on a more regional tier doesn't help exposure, but lets be real - all but a slight few of those games are likely not watched outside the the footprint anyway. The big games go on the primary TV contract. (Now if you want to look at the effect of the night games and 12/6 day holds - that could kill more revenue in the future as people give up coming to games. But that will affect other conferences too as they also have night games and 12/6 day holds.)

When it comes to basketball, I think it does make a significant difference. Firstly, the sports' per school revenues are nowhere near football levels for almost all hoops programs across the country. So extra money can bridge the gap especially for mid tier teams. There are also so many games that the P12N would be a good avenue for exposure. But then again, I doubt the rating would be that great even if carried for free nationally.

The Big Ten and SEC are sitting on piles of TV cash. They can pump that into non-rev sports. We might even ironically see those conferences start to dominate some of the non-rev sports more using the money from the FB TV contracts - while the P12 squanders money broadcasting non-rev sports to audiences of virtually no actual viewers.

Now from a PR perspective, it's just looking really bad. Lots of just stupid things.


Texas is interesting in they are not SEC or Big Ten. Here is a good article:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2018/01/19/texas-athletics-department-operating-revenue-and-expenses-ov/1050205001/
ThesePretzels
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UCBerkGrad said:

You can blame him for the problems at the P12N but it's not like Scott has been the cause of lower revenue for the schools or the inability to hire great coaches or not being able to recruit elite athletes.
This is partially true. Part of the problem is just endemic to location.

For instance, it's hard to recruit the best coaches like Saban to Cal/Stanford/UCLA/USC/Washington because of the cost of living... you'd have to pay Saban a crap ton to give him the same relative wealth he enjoys in Alabama. And he'd still not be closest to the richest guy around if he lived near the Stanford campus.

Plus all three metro locations have professional sports teams that make coaching college seem like the "minor leagues." Not true in Raleigh Durham (basketball), Charlottesville (basketball), Gainesville (football), Clemson (football), etc.

And the athlete issue is also partially regional (offensive lineman, for example, just don't grow as big on the west coast) and partially academic (ie Chip Kelly spent all last year recruiting 2-3 star football players who are likely good in school, bad at football).

I remember when Larry Scott first signed the TV deal, he was hailed as a genius. The problem is other leagues just do the same thing -- like the ACC Network launching later this summer -- without bungling negotiations, the way Scott did with DirecTV.

So yes, Scott is *partially* to blame, but Pac-12 was due for a major downturn given going to school nearby is no longer as desirable or even needed in today's connected social media world (ie # of top SoCal football players not going to USC/UCLA is incredible).

95bears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like things may be changing?

Larry Scott losing Power
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Peanut Gallery Consultant
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
95bears said:

Looks like things may be changing?

Larry Scott losing Power
Bad link.
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

venividivici said:
Anyone who thinks we don't need a new coach is delusional. D1 sports is a business. Butts in seats. How many will return with the satay us who. In the decades since Pete Newell retired Cal has had just one A level coach, Mike Montgomery. A laughable record. Hopefully the AD can see and count empty seats. What top player wants that scene. Time to get real. Play the game or move to D3.
There you go....what this poster said. But, hey, Cal could be the talk-of-the-town in both football and basketball
while playing in the MOUNTAIN WEST CONFERENCE. Oh, I know many of you see such a move as a laughable degradation to Cal sports....and for awhile, maybe it would be...but such fans don't see that Cal's administration of sports is already reflective of a MWC school. Cal is beginning to walk like a duck....quack like a duck....and is surely acting like a duck.....so maybe the Bear should be replaced with a duck?

Oh, Cal could eventually bring the Bear back by leading the charge to create a new conference, for example, without the u$C's but some imaginative members.....????

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Blueblood said:

Quote:

venividivici said:
Anyone who thinks we don't need a new coach is delusional. D1 sports is a business. Butts in seats. How many will return with the satay us who. In the decades since Pete Newell retired Cal has had just one A level coach, Mike Montgomery. A laughable record. Hopefully the AD can see and count empty seats. What top player wants that scene. Time to get real. Play the game or move to D3.
There you go....what this poster said. But, hey, Cal could be the talk-of-the-town in both football and basketball
while playing in the MOUNTAIN WEST CONFERENCE. Oh, I know many of you see such a move as a laughable degradation to Cal sports....and for awhile, maybe it would be...but such fans don't see that Cal's administration of sports is already reflective of a MWC school. Cal is beginning to walk like a duck....quack like a duck....and is surely acting like a duck.....so maybe the Bear should be replaced with a duck?

Oh, Cal could eventually bring the Bear back by leading the charge to create a new conference, for example, without the u$C's but some imaginative members.....????


Do we really think we could beat MWC teams right now?
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

95bears said:

Looks like things may be changing?

Larry Scott losing Power
Bad link.
Think he was trying to link this:

https://tucson.com/sports/local/hansen-s-sunday-notebook-dave-heeke-and-pac--s/collection_c5d41594-4865-11e9-9204-b735ef07d3a1.html
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

Donation/Ticket revenue is so great in the top football programs that it just dominates the TV money. We are talking $100+ million yearly at Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan etc.
This is true. Pac-12 programs need to focus more on donations and ticket sales.

For example, Wazzu's president whined publicly about P12N revenue recently, but Wazzu is near the bottom of P5 schools in donations and ticket revenue. They could do a lot more for themselves by turning that around than by complaining.
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alternatively, Larry Scott is sucking because the Pac 12 sucks. We leapt over the SEC and the Big 10 in 2010 when the new deals were struck, and we could have possibly built the Pac 12 network into a powerhouse if SC, Cal, Oregon etc continued to play like they did in the 2000's, But instead everyone plummeted and we have a terrible football conference where STANFURD had to take the lead the past 10 years as the winningest program. No wonder no one wants to buy the Pac 12 conference channels. Washington is the more recent winner of the program emerging sweepstakes, but they have gone with a 4 year starter at QB who is average at best and lost every big game they really needed to win.

There was plenty of money, but the Pac 12 decided to spend it on other things, and now the momentum is gone.

So the question is what is going to happen now? Pac 12 needs to get lucky and have some of these new coaches come in and win, and take out the SEC for us to have any real credibility.

And basketball will rise with football like it always does.
FiatSlug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's more than just Pac-12 football sucks.

The TV distribution rights via ESPN and Fox are subservient to the programming needs of those networks. The Pac-12 is treated as filler for those networks' programming schedules. Consequently, many Pac-12 games are after dark, which in turn depresses in-game attendance. The 12-day and 6-day windows also depress in-game attendance because fans who might otherwise attend a game make other plans in advance of game dates.

The Pac-12 hurt themselves by hitching their TV distribution to ESPN and Fox. The Pac-12 needs to be the primary client at a network with national coverage and distribution. That effectively eliminates CBS, who gives the SEC primary status.

NBC 's contract with Notre Dame is running out in 2022, IIRC. The Pac-12 could do much worse sticking with ESPN and Fox.

There might also be possible advantages with a package that includes both NBC and CBS if it minimizes Pac-12 after dark AND ensures that kickoffs are set 19 to 26 days in advance, thus aiding ticket sales.

The deal that Larry Scott made with ESPN and Fox in 2011 looked good until other P5 conferences made their deals with those same networks 2 to 3 years later. Those deals revealed that the Pac -12 was still secondary to the SEC, ACC (!), B1G, and even the Big 12. Pac-12 presidents and fans were sold a bill of goods by Larry Scott.

We can do better and deserve better
calbear70
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Larry Scott is only concerned about TV revenue. That is why he has a schedule that includes Thursday and Friday nights. The football game can be scheduled anywhere between 10:00 PM and 7:30PM. The late games end around midnight and you don't know when they will start until two or possibly 1 week before the game. That is why Memorial Colliseum is half empty most of the time. Larry Scott could care less about the fans attending, in fact, he would be fine if all games were played in a TV studio. Nice he has been commissioner the PAC 12 basketball and football quality has taken a dive. He should be fired.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FiatSlug said:

It's more than just Pac-12 football sucks.

The TV distribution rights via ESPN and Fox are subservient to the programming needs of those networks. The Pac-12 is treated as filler for those networks' programming schedules. Consequently, many Pac-12 games are after dark, which in turn depresses in-game attendance. The 12-day and 6-day windows also depress in-game attendance because fans who might otherwise attend a game make other plans in advance of game dates.

The Pac-12 hurt themselves by hitching their TV distribution to ESPN and Fox. The Pac-12 needs to be the primary client at a network with national coverage and distribution. That effectively eliminates CBS, who gives the SEC primary status.

NBC 's contract with Notre Dame is running out in 2022, IIRC. The Pac-12 could do much worse sticking with ESPN and Fox.

There might also be possible advantages with a package that includes both NBC and CBS if it minimizes Pac-12 after dark AND ensures that kickoffs are set 19 to 26 days in advance, thus aiding ticket sales.

The deal that Larry Scott made with ESPN and Fox in 2011 looked good until other P5 conferences made their deals with those same networks 2 to 3 years later. Those deals revealed that the Pac -12 was still secondary to the SEC, ACC (!), B1G, and even the Big 12. Pac-12 presidents and fans were sold a bill of goods by Larry Scott.

We can do better and deserve better

This is all well and good. But the fact is our ratings suck because while we care, so many around us do not. I don't think there's much the conference can do to overcome that, other than surpassing the SEC in football superiority for an extended period of time.
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Scott & Buh.
SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

FiatSlug said:

It's more than just Pac-12 football sucks.

The TV distribution rights via ESPN and Fox are subservient to the programming needs of those networks. The Pac-12 is treated as filler for those networks' programming schedules. Consequently, many Pac-12 games are after dark, which in turn depresses in-game attendance. The 12-day and 6-day windows also depress in-game attendance because fans who might otherwise attend a game make other plans in advance of game dates.

The Pac-12 hurt themselves by hitching their TV distribution to ESPN and Fox. The Pac-12 needs to be the primary client at a network with national coverage and distribution. That effectively eliminates CBS, who gives the SEC primary status.

NBC 's contract with Notre Dame is running out in 2022, IIRC. The Pac-12 could do much worse sticking with ESPN and Fox.

There might also be possible advantages with a package that includes both NBC and CBS if it minimizes Pac-12 after dark AND ensures that kickoffs are set 19 to 26 days in advance, thus aiding ticket sales.

The deal that Larry Scott made with ESPN and Fox in 2011 looked good until other P5 conferences made their deals with those same networks 2 to 3 years later. Those deals revealed that the Pac -12 was still secondary to the SEC, ACC (!), B1G, and even the Big 12. Pac-12 presidents and fans were sold a bill of goods by Larry Scott.

We can do better and deserve better

This is all well and good. But the fact is our ratings suck because while we care, so many around us do not. I don't think there's much the conference can do to overcome that, other than surpassing the SEC in football superiority for an extended period of time.


This. Necessity is the mother of invention, and I don't think people on the West Coast care enough about college sports to figure out how to get their teams to compete against the Bamas and Dukes of the world.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bear19 said:

Buh.
I, too, blame Buh.

Lower the damn prices, A LOT!

Times have changed with tv for all games. If not, just tarp all the upper bowl.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.