1 of 1- OldMacManaic
- Member
Offline 
- From: SWPDX
- Registered: 1/06/2020
- Posts: 497
LA Times post-mortem on Pac-12
an extensive, well-sourced deep dive on the demise of the Conference of Champions, from a reporter at a Big People newspaper, without the peeking-through-the-blinds aspect of less-statured opinion vendors.
SC and its prez, Carol Folt, put the kibosh on possible expansion and poaching of the Big12 by the Pac; possibly because they knew the B1G offer was on the horizon, or maybe because they were already sharing more than enough revenue with weak sisters who never pulled their own weight financially.
Kliavkoff tried to pull off a double-double: lobby the UC Board of Regents to deny BruCru's request to join the B1G, and pull together a revenue-sharing package that distributed more to UCLA than other conf schools as incentive to remain (addressing one of the core reasons SC bolted). Oregon, among others, vetoed it.
An unnamed president of an unnamed university had an Econ prof 'run the numbers.' the conclusion was that the school was indeed worth the $50 mill that was later counter-offered to ESPN. doesn't say who, but likely UW or UO.
Phil Knight and Oregon liked the final Apple offer, understanding better than others that a subscription-based, sliding-scale incentive package provided a national program like UO with a path to realizing a payout close to $50 mill per year.
UW did not, being more wedded to the linear model, and it was the Dawgs who first accepted the new Fox-enabled B1G offer. Oregon followed--the only real choice with the Apple offer in ruins.
- oldretiredguy
- Moderator
Offline
- Registered: 12/29/2019
- Posts: 2,245
Re: LA Times post-mortem on Pac-12
I believe that president who used a prof was Crow, from ASU. Totally irresponsible and arrogant. Crow was also a huge supporter of Scott.
"He wrote: " The Pac-12 school president was not named in the report, but if you ask anyone in the conference — administrators, executives, coaches, fans — which school was probably at the center of this mess, one name keeps coming up as the likely culprit: Arizona State President Michael Crow. Remember: Crow was an ardent Larry Scott defender. He was and is part of the old guard of conference leadership. He was the school president most out of touch with reality on Pac-12 value and media rights issues. If you think about the other Pac-12 schools and their presidents, none are nearly as likely as Crow to have been associated with a nutty professor who conjured up a wildly unrealistic dollar figure for a media deal ($50 million per school without USC and UCLA in the conference). "
- Phil
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 12/29/2019
- Posts: 2,066
Re: LA Times post-mortem on Pac-12
oldretiredguy wrote:
I believe that president who used a prof was Crow, from ASU. Totally irresponsible and arrogant. Crow was also a huge supporter of Scott.
"He wrote: " The Pac-12 school president was not named in the report, but if you ask anyone in the conference — administrators, executives, coaches, fans — which school was probably at the center of this mess, one name keeps coming up as the likely culprit: Arizona State President Michael Crow. Remember: Crow was an ardent Larry Scott defender. He was and is part of the old guard of conference leadership. He was the school president most out of touch with reality on Pac-12 value and media rights issues. If you think about the other Pac-12 schools and their presidents, none are nearly as likely as Crow to have been associated with a nutty professor who conjured up a wildly unrealistic dollar figure for a media deal ($50 million per school without USC and UCLA in the conference). "
I keep hearing ASU as the most likely suspect as well.
- Phil
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 12/29/2019
- Posts: 2,066
Re: LA Times post-mortem on Pac-12
It's nice to see some reporting that includes a number of teams and factors for the Pac's demised.
Unfortunately I tuned in the JC the Monday after afterone left. Just like I thought JC spent the first 25 minutes framing the end of the Pac as Oregon decided to end the conference. There wasn't a single mention of the Huskies. Finally he got Patrick Chun on who didn't try to put it all on the Ducks and referenced the Presidents as the first reason. My drive was over and I didn't hear the rest. He waxed poetic about his sources and all and yet just framed the whole downfall as Oregon's decision. Maybe he's walked it back now? I don't know since I haven't been reading and tuning into him as of recent.
Tweet