tOfficial PAC-12 Thread

Thiefery said:
The PAC schools were ok with Texas.. and it was for all intents and purposes.. done. When ESPN threw in 300 mil for the LHN contract, UT asked him if it was ok to bring it.. He said no and that was that. Oklahoma, Kansas.. whomever else.. wasn't going out west without Texas.

If he had said yes..the PAC wouldn't be where it is now.. The network would have been picked up due to UT/ou. So what if UT shows a September game vs Louisiana-Lafayette on LHN.. PAC Network could still broadcast other conference games UT would be a part of.

Larry would be looked at as an innovator and get it done commish.. even with the SF high rise office.. and best believe the CCG wouldn't have ever been held on a Friday night.
Click to expand...
They weren’t in agreement at all with Texas. Not sure where you got your info on that dude. There were formal talks from Larry Scott after Colorado got a unanimous yes vote. If you want my honest opinion A&M and Nebraska talking about the LHN non stop is the only reason anyone brings it up about why the “Pac 16” fell apart. At worst it was a reason Texas and Larry Scott both could both look good PR wise.

Texas coming in would’ve been great for the interim but Larry Scott would still be looking for a job. At the moment I do not think there is a single soul on Earth that could bring the conference together as it currently stands. Adding an Alpha like Texas wouldn’t have done anything about the issues with the Bay Area schools. Not one single person could handle the dick measuring contest Texas would have had with UCLA and SC. Not one person could handle the fight that would’ve happened between where the PAC 12 HQ would be. Vegas getting the championship games isn’t because of some grand strategy Larry Scott had, it was because of the embarrassment that was the bball tournament in LA and the football title game being mocked for being at the higher seeds home stadium then the utter disgrace of having Santa Clara having a venue they try selling to the country.
 
Thiefery said:
Also, it would have been something else to have rotating CCGs in Vegas and Dallas
Click to expand...
Rotating CCG between the 4 NFL stadiums was rumored a lot but Larry Scott couldn’t get everyone on board. A rotation between Denver, LA, Glendale and Seattle would’ve made sense. The Pac 12 proved the what the rest of the sports world knows, the Bay Area doesn’t support athletics.
 
wazzu31 said:
Rotating CCG between the 4 NFL stadiums was rumored a lot but Larry Scott couldn’t get everyone on board. A rotation between Denver, LA, Glendale and Seattle would’ve made sense. The Pac 12 proved the what the rest of the sports world knows, the Bay Area doesn’t support athletics.
Click to expand...

Warriors have had great fan support since drafting Curry.
 
OlyDuck said:
im glad Pac 12 is moving on but i dont know if id say failed miserably

pac 10-->pac 12 though the 2 schools brought in werent the needle movers needed they still have been good for the conference.
improvement to bowl contracts.
better deals for both basketball conference tournaments
better football championship game local.
even with the short comings of the Pac 12 Network and distribution there is still greater exposure than before. every football game televised.
Click to expand...
It all depends on which needles a conference is wanting to move. From what we've seen, the first needle conferences want to move is the financial needle. Any other needles that get moved are gravy. I mean, why else would the B1G have invited Rutgers and Maryland?
 
Deep Creek said:
It all depends on which needles a conference is wanting to move. From what we've seen, the first needle conferences want to move is the financial needle. Any other needles that get moved are gravy. I mean, why else would the B1G have invited Rutgers and Maryland?
Click to expand...
rutgers was in the midst of a 9 win season when it accepted a Big Ten invite. and were coming off numerous 9 and 8 win seasons with a 11 win 2006
Maryland i can only assume was more of a basketball move
 
wazzu31 said:
How can you say he was anything other than a utter failure? He should get a shit load of credit for swinging for the fences with trying to get Texas. But that seemed like his only goal once he got the job, and once he struck out he was left empty headed. And yes, he is given a little slack because you are at a disadvantage on the west coast because the passion for sports are in pockets and can’t rival any of the other P5 conferences.

You act as though Larry Scott got good deals. Inflation alone meant the conference was going to get more money than before. Getting $5 is better than the $1 you had. But when other conferences are getting $10 you don’t get to claim success.

What improvement to bowl games was Larry Scott a part responsible for? The bowl committee’s are the ones who do all of that work. AD’s and coaches don’t campaign to their commissioner, they campaign to those who select matchups

How is it a better football conference championship? By ever metric it is a failure. A Friday night where they can’t even draw half of a crowd isn’t an accomplishment that a P5 commissioner should be proud of.

Vegas was smart for the basketball tournament at the end of his tenure. But you can’t forget his getting 3,000 or whatever people per game at the Staples Center. Nor can anyone really say the move to Vegas really turned it into P5 worthy tournament.


And in your post you admit not every game is televised. Having a HS television crew at the stadium recording doesn’t equal televised.
Click to expand...
pac bowls when Scott came in were
Rose vs Big Ten
Holiday vs Big XII
Sun Vs Big East
Vegas vs MW
Emerald vs ACC

Pac bowls now
CFP or NY6/Rose vs Big Ten
Alamo vs Big XII
Holiday vs ACC
Vegas vs SEC/Big Ten
Red Box vs Big Ten
Sun vs ACC
Independence vs Army
LA vs MW

getting a game is more money in the first place. and while everything came under him realizing home stadium wasnt good moving to NFL stadiums was a solid move and then the move to Vegas while we havent seen it yet was a good move from SF.

no i said every game is televised. even on the piss poor pac 12 net but none the less on tv when they woulndt have been before.
 
huskers1217 said:
oh...okay i had no idea to be honest
Click to expand...
HE is relocating to the bay area because that is where the offices are
geographically its fairly centered to the conference. its about 2 hour flight from seattle or arizona and just over 2 from boulder
 
OlyDuck said:
rutgers was in the midst of a 9 win season when it accepted a Big Ten invite. and were coming off numerous 9 and 8 win seasons with a 11 win 2006
Maryland i can only assume was more of a basketball move
Click to expand...
Neither were "needle movers" other than money IMO.
 
OlyDuck said:
pac bowls when Scott came in were
Rose vs Big Ten
Holiday vs Big XII
Sun Vs Big East
Vegas vs MW
Emerald vs ACC

Pac bowls now
CFP or NY6/Rose vs Big Ten
Alamo vs Big XII
Holiday vs ACC
Vegas vs SEC/Big Ten
Red Box vs Big Ten
Sun vs ACC
Independence vs Army
LA vs MW

getting a game is more money in the first place. and while everything came under him realizing home stadium wasnt good moving to NFL stadiums was a solid move and then the move to Vegas while we havent seen it yet was a good move from SF.

no i said every game is televised. even on the piss poor pac 12 net but none the less on tv when they woulndt have been before.
Click to expand...
And none of those bowl games are because of Larry Scott. And let’s just toss out a hypothetical and say he is responsible, how in the world is it good for conference that the number 2 bowl game is in San Antonio instead of San Diego?

But a piss poor or even high production of a game on the Pac 12 networks is the exact same as being non televised for 1/3 of our country. Just as the lofty goal of trying to lure Texas, the Network was a great idea on paper. But once the distribution fell through he should’ve gone back to the drawing board. The Network is a national joke because of Larry Scott not having an answer for the word no. It isn’t remotely as successful as the B1G Network which that conference has always been in lock step with the Pacific insert number conference and the Pac 12 has the most eye balls for advertising out of any conference.
 
wazzu31 said:
So great they wouldn’t build them an arena?
Click to expand...

Also, the move had nothing to do with "Oakland wouldn't build them an arena" and everything to do with marketability.
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
Also, the move had nothing to do with "Oakland wouldn't build them an arena" and everything to do with marketability.
Click to expand...
No, they have been trying for a new arena for the Warriors since I was born, the Giants are the only one that got a professional venue built. The Bay Area doesn’t support any team they have had. The Raiders are the closest thing they had but that fan base wasn’t Bay Area.
 
wazzu31 said:
No, they have been trying for a new arena for the Warriors since I was born, the Giants are the only one that got a professional venue built. The Bay Area doesn’t support any team they have had. The Raiders are the closest thing they had but that fan base wasn’t Bay Area.
Click to expand...

Warriors have a new arena...in the Bay Area.
 
wazzu31 said:
In the Bay Area, not in the city. As well as it shouldn’t taken a micro dynasty to get another city take them.
Click to expand...
The Chase Center is in downtown San Francisco. You are completely clueless.
 
duckboy33 said:
Yeah, I figured he didn't actually say he's prioritizing women's basketball. In fact, he stated that he understands that Men's basketball and football is the focus. We'll see about the hire. I'll give him a chance.
Click to expand...

Just the fact that he said that he said "We're focused on the revenue sports and winning in men's basketball and football" makes me willing to give him a chance. Larry Scott wanting to elevate the "Olympic sports" and women's sports was great...but he never understood that you can't do that at the expense of the programs that actually generate the money that allows those sports to exist.
 
trojanfan12 said:
Just the fact that he said that he said "We're focused on the revenue sports and winning in men's basketball and football" makes me willing to give him a chance. Larry Scott wanting to elevate the "Olympic sports" and women's sports was great...but he never understood that you can't do that at the expense of the programs that actually generate the money that allows those sports to exist.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if USC and Oregon start playing up to their recruiting rankings, a lot of the PAC 12s problems will solve themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top