Pac-12 considering buying out Larry Scott's contract

2,458 Views | 22 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by golden sloth
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
https://footballscoop.com/news/report-pac-12-considering-buying-out-larry-scotts-contract-early/
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

https://footballscoop.com/news/report-pac-12-considering-buying-out-larry-scotts-contract-early/
Some things never change -

"Follow the money"
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

https://footballscoop.com/news/report-pac-12-considering-buying-out-larry-scotts-contract-early/
Great! It can't happen soon enough. Scott has been a disaster for the conference. Hopefully, he will be replaced with someone who actually knows what he or she is doing and can make the Pac-12 competitive with the other Power 5 conferences.
westcoast101
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This can't happen soon enough.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't mind his vision of the conference owning its own network(s) and media rights, but in practice the whole thing seems to have been mismanaged (still not on DirecTV -- meaning in no sports bars -- after 8 years?). And that was pretty much his whole pitch to begin with: Pac-12 Network! Gonna be a huge success!

Only thing I can say for Scott is that he's not any worse than Tom Hansen was.
HighlandDutch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

...

Only thing I can say for Scott is that he's not any worse than Tom Hansen was.
Just awful in a different way.
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not understanding why he has not cut a deal with Direct Tv or why The School presidents think they need him gone to get such a deal. Are they willing to make concessions Scott is not? are they willing to sell some rights to ESPN?

If cutting a deal with DT would increase conference revenues, why has Scott not done this? Especially now when we are obviously worth less, some kind of deal could be made. Too bad he did not get such a deal before the Virus has made our leverage less. Bad risk he took which has now come home to roost .
Go Bears!
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

I don't mind his vision of the conference owning its own network(s) and media rights, but in practice the whole thing seems to have been mismanaged (still not on DirecTV -- meaning in no sports bars -- after 8 years?). And that was pretty much his whole pitch to begin with: Pac-12 Network! Gonna be a huge success!

Only thing I can say for Scott is that he's not any worse than Tom Hansen was.


I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.

Drop the local channels, focus on football and basketball to streamline in all. Also, there is obvious stuff they can do to improve content like create an extended 8 -10 minute highlight from every game that you can play on the channel and post to youtube.
EC bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Long overdue. Glad to hear this may be in the cards.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

sycasey said:

I don't mind his vision of the conference owning its own network(s) and media rights, but in practice the whole thing seems to have been mismanaged (still not on DirecTV -- meaning in no sports bars -- after 8 years?). And that was pretty much his whole pitch to begin with: Pac-12 Network! Gonna be a huge success!

Only thing I can say for Scott is that he's not any worse than Tom Hansen was.


I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.

Drop the local channels, focus on football and basketball to streamline in all. Also, there is obvious stuff they can do to improve content like create an extended 8 -10 minute highlight from every game that you can play on the channel and post to youtube.
Yeah, the local channels don't seem to be any kind of value-add and if anything are an impediment to getting the network picked up by service providers. You can still show the Olympic sports on the network, as there are plenty of hours when football and basketball games are not being played, plus you can keep putting stuff up for online streaming and do it cheaper (at least I'd assume it could be done more cheaply).
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

Not understanding why he has not cut a deal with Direct Tv or why The School presidents think they need him gone to get such a deal. Are they willing to make concessions Scott is not? are they willing to sell some rights to ESPN?

If cutting a deal with DT would increase conference revenues, why has Scott not done this? Especially now when we are obviously worth less, some kind of deal could be made. Too bad he did not get such a deal before the Virus has made our leverage less. Bad risk he took which has now come home to roost .


A simple answer is that a deal with directv would not increase conference revenue. This is due to the price matching 'favored nations' clause with other partners. The wrong deal with DTV could actually DECREASE total network revenue.

Would have been better to increase profits by cutting expenses. The demand for non-rev sports content was completely oversold. Probably should have kept the studios in the burbs, too. Nothing wrong with Walnut Creek.


Sebastabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If there were any justice Larry would be paying the conference to go away, not vice-versa.
Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

I don't mind his vision of the conference owning its own network(s) and media rights, but in practice the whole thing seems to have been mismanaged (still not on DirecTV -- meaning in no sports bars -- after 8 years?). And that was pretty much his whole pitch to begin with: Pac-12 Network! Gonna be a huge success!

Only thing I can say for Scott is that he's not any worse than Tom Hansen was.

It was a terrible idea then -- it defied common sense -- and has proved to be worse.

Disagree about not worse than Hansen. At least Tom stood for something: no games starting so that they will end the next day; Th/Fr-Sat/Sun b'ball games;.....

Quote:

but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.

Exactly. And that's where common sense comes into play. There's a reason why espn does not show women's filed hockey during prime time.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:



I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.

I agree that the Pac 12 Network should totally drop the Olympic sports. Hardly anyone follows those sports, and they're nothing but a money pit. The schools in the conference should also severely cut back on those sports for the same reason.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

golden sloth said:

sycasey said:

I don't mind his vision of the conference owning its own network(s) and media rights, but in practice the whole thing seems to have been mismanaged (still not on DirecTV -- meaning in no sports bars -- after 8 years?). And that was pretty much his whole pitch to begin with: Pac-12 Network! Gonna be a huge success!

Only thing I can say for Scott is that he's not any worse than Tom Hansen was.


I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.

Drop the local channels, focus on football and basketball to streamline in all. Also, there is obvious stuff they can do to improve content like create an extended 8 -10 minute highlight from every game that you can play on the channel and post to youtube.
Yeah, the local channels don't seem to be any kind of value-add and if anything are an impediment to getting the network picked up by service providers. You can still show the Olympic sports on the network, as there are plenty of hours when football and basketball games are not being played, plus you can keep putting stuff up for online streaming and do it cheaper (at least I'd assume it could be done more cheaply).
Not having an online archive for subscribers really sucks.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big Dog said:

Disagree about not worse than Hansen. At least Tom stood for something: no games starting so that they will end the next day;
Is that really true? We definitely had some 7:30 PM starts under Hansen. Granted, not as many, but they happened.
Sebastabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golden One said:

golden sloth said:



I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.

I agree that the Pac 12 Network should totally drop the Olympic sports. Hardly anyone follows those sports, and they're nothing but a money pit. The schools in the conference should also severely cut back on those sports for the same reason.
For some reason the local Pac-12 network has been interspersing reruns of the women's gymnastics tournaments with the classic Cal football games.

Boy I'd sure love to watch that replay of the spring tournament . . . said no one ever.

Can't imagine what those viewership numbers look like. Probably makes C-span look like the Super Bowl.
Cal8285
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Big Dog said:

Disagree about not worse than Hansen. At least Tom stood for something: no games starting so that they will end the next day;
Is that really true? We definitely had some 7:30 PM starts under Hansen. Granted, not as many, but they happened.
Yeah, but when Hansen was commissioner, we didn't have any 4 1/2 hour games.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal8285 said:

sycasey said:

Big Dog said:

Disagree about not worse than Hansen. At least Tom stood for something: no games starting so that they will end the next day;
Is that really true? We definitely had some 7:30 PM starts under Hansen. Granted, not as many, but they happened.
Yeah, but when Hansen was commissioner, we didn't have any 4 1/2 hour games.
Blame Sonny Dykes!
CALiforniALUM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does Title IX extend to a network that is owned by a system who must grant equal access? Or is the PAC-12 conference and commissioner not really the same as an educational institution under the eyes of the law?
mbBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golden One said:

golden sloth said:



I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.

I agree that the Pac 12 Network should totally drop the Olympic sports. Hardly anyone follows those sports, and they're nothing but a money pit. The schools in the conference should also severely cut back on those sports for the same reason.
Whether the schools should have them involves Title IX ramifications.
The successful conferences show the "non-revenue sports" to show broad support for their athletic community, and obviously gender; this argument would not show Women's sports at all. Women's basketball would get a pass for some because they are playing something of some interest?
The Big 10 was showing some of these sports long before they had the Network. Again, this was never about economic gain, but rather some support for the college community as a whole. They paid outlets to air and produce games-it was something beyond a "professional sports" mentality.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mbBear said:

Golden One said:

golden sloth said:



I think a major problem with the pac 12 networks is the focus on the Olympic sports and other non-revenue sports. At the time, I thought it was a good move to try and make those make some money through broadcasting the games, but in hindsight the end the consumer appetite just isnt there, they cost a lot of money to air.

I agree that the Pac 12 Network should totally drop the Olympic sports. Hardly anyone follows those sports, and they're nothing but a money pit. The schools in the conference should also severely cut back on those sports for the same reason.
Whether the schools should have them involves Title IX ramifications.
The successful conferences show the "non-revenue sports" to show broad support for their athletic community, and obviously gender; this argument would not show Women's sports at all. Women's basketball would get a pass for some because they are playing something of some interest?
The Big 10 was showing some of these sports long before they had the Network. Again, this was never about economic gain, but rather some support for the college community as a whole. They paid outlets to air and produce games-it was something beyond a "professional sports" mentality.
There is no reason to totally drop these sports from the network. Football and basketball can't fill every hour of programming. The issue is more all of the regional networks that seem to have been created to showcase the Olympic sports but aren't really drawing interest. Other conferences have shown that a single conference network is fine and you are still able to show a variety of sports on them.
59bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If only Scott had been as successful in promoting the conference as he has been in promoting himself, we'd all be happy. Unfortunately, the PAC's slippage vis a vis the SEC/Big10, exacerbated by time zone challenges that put a significant amount of tv exposure outside the prime time window of a large segment of the populace, has led to a dispiriting trend of prime west coast talent heading east and south. I only wish the answer to reversing the declining fortunes of our conference were as easy as replacing Larry Scott.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
59bear said:

If only Scott had been as successful in promoting the conference as he has been in promoting himself, we'd all be happy. Unfortunately, the PAC's slippage vis a vis the SEC/Big10, exacerbated by time zone challenges that put a significant amount of tv exposure outside the prime time window of a large segment of the populace, has led to a dispiriting trend of prime west coast talent heading east and south. I only wish the answer to reversing the declining fortunes of our conference were as easy as replacing Larry Scott.


There is also the core fundamental differences between the Pac-12 and the Big 10 / SEC.

1. The population of each conference footprints is drastically different.
2. The places the majority of those people live is drastically different (cities for the Pac-12, which have professional sports teams), small towns for the SEC/BIG.
3. The amount of interest is drastically different (its niche entertainment on the west coast).

The problem is that Pac-12 doesn't have the same market size or demand as the Big 10 or SEC.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.