Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Larry Scott's future being discussed
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-02-2020 12:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-02-2020 12:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Large, booming populations don’t necessarily translate to lots of college sports viewers. Fast growth doesn’t mean that all of those extra people are going to follow PAC 12 sports

I agree, but the Pac-12 isn't made up of some minor athletic brands. USC and UCLA are blue blood football and basketball programs, respectively, and located in the 2nd largest media market in the country. Oregon has the best financial benefactor that you can possibly ask for with an athletic department (Phil Knight and Nike), Stanford is at the top of the academic elite (with a lower acceptance rate than Harvard), et. al. When USC is rolling in football, they are historically as great of a TV ratings draw as any school in the country and they own freaking *Los Angeles* as opposed to places like Birmingham and Columbus.

Asking the Pac-12 to have the same types of intense fan bases as the SEC and Big Ten may not be possible, but that's honestly not possible for any other league, anyway. However, there's absolutely zero reason why the Pac-12 should be behind the Big 12 and ACC with the assets that are on the West Coast. It's hard to remember, but the Pac-12's current TV deal with ESPN and Fox was the largest college sports deal ever signed when it was completed. The Pac-12 Network should have been an excellent revenue stream on top of that - once again, not necessarily on par with the BTN or SEC Network, but they should have definitely been in a better place than the ACC Network.

SEC-"It just means more."
The Pac 12-"It just means less."

There is just a huge gap in fan interest between the Big 10, SEC, Big 12 states and the West Coast in college and high school sports. That is a permanent handicap for the Pac 12. It was one of the things that got Ricky Williams to Texas from San Diego. He was amazed at the fan interest even at the high school level.
03-02-2020 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-01-2020 04:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(03-01-2020 02:24 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-01-2020 02:11 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(03-01-2020 02:06 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Larry Scott is getting railroaded.

I'd say kind of deservedly so.

Why?

You don't have to like the guy, but scapegoating him for the conference's media revenue failures is like blaming the dealer for a bad draw. It just comes off trashy and amateurish shifting blame off yourself for bad play and decision-making.

They didn't want to expand to fourteen when everyone was. They didn't want to enter an inter-conference agreement. They wanted to keep individual ownership, and not do things like the Big Ten or SEC.

I think it's pitiful how the PAC is handling this.

This is all about the Pac-12 Network. It has become an albatross around the conference neck. The only person befitting from the Pac-12 Network is Larry Scott, who parlayed the idea of the Pac-12 owning their own network into a $5.3 million dollar annual salary, offices in San Francisco with an annual rent of $6.9 million and a very nice pad in Danville. The pad in Danville cost $1.85 million for a 4,600 square foot home on one acre in the upscale Blackhawk Country Club subdivision in Danville. He was given a $1.86 million dollar relocation loan, which he has never paid back. I am guessing that he used the loan on the new house, which is definitely worth a lot more than he paid for it. No one will ever describe Scott as "frugal."

Scott has a network that reaches about 18 million homes. I read where the SEC Network reached 69 million homes and the Big Ten Network 60 million homes. So exposure is a huge problem, especially in California, which does not help recruiting. In California, it is easier to find an SEC or Big Ten Network game than a Pac-12 Network game on TV. The Pac-12 Network has Longhorn Network type of exposure issues, but at least Texas is getting $15 million annually for the crummy exposure.

In listening on the radio to USC football talk over the past few months, the only person more unpopular than Clay Helton is Larry Scott. I think Helton is going to miss Larry Scott...

The LHN is on everyplace but Comcast. They have coverage all over Texas. Pac 12 network has much weaker coverage in their area.
03-02-2020 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #23
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-02-2020 12:30 PM)schmolik Wrote:  If the ACCN is more successful than the Pac-12, then the P12N really is a failure. If it isn't, then it's the on field product.

The ACCN is already in twice as many homes as the PACN.
03-02-2020 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #24
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-02-2020 09:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Larry Scott, for whatever reason, hasn't been able to translate that into a real advantage for the Pac-12 and, instead, seems to reverting to a traditional playbook of suddenly asking schools whether they'd be willing to play games at 9 am local time for TV purposes. The Pac-12 has as great of a set of assets of any conference for the long-term, but it doesn't seem to know how to maximize them.

Well, he's also been looking for an "equity partner" to invest hundreds of millions in the PACN, which basically amounts to an admission that the "own the whole thing ourselves" strategy that the entire network is based on has been a failure.
03-02-2020 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #25
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
I don't get people wanting to defend Larry Scott. Just because the Board of Directors is incompetent doesn't mean the CEO shouldn't be fired if he does a bad job.
03-02-2020 02:43 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,861
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 302
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-02-2020 09:21 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-01-2020 04:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  This is all about the Pac-12 Network. It has become an albatross around the conference neck. The only person befitting from the Pac-12 Network is Larry Scott, who parlayed the idea of the Pac-12 owning their own network into a $5.3 million dollar annual salary, offices in San Francisco with an annual rent of $6.9 million and a very nice pad in Danville. The pad in Danville cost $1.85 million for a 4,600 square foot home on one acre in the upscale Blackhawk Country Club subdivision in Danville. He was given a $1.86 million dollar relocation loan, which he has never paid back. I am guessing that he used the loan on the new house, which is definitely worth a lot more than he paid for it. No one will ever describe Scott as "frugal."

Scott has a network that reaches about 18 million homes. I read where the SEC Network reached 69 million homes and the Big Ten Network 60 million homes. So exposure is a huge problem, especially in California, which does not help recruiting. In California, it is easier to find an SEC or Big Ten Network game than a Pac-12 Network game on TV. The Pac-12 Network has Longhorn Network type of exposure issues, but at least Texas is getting $15 million annually for the crummy exposure.

In listening on the radio to USC football talk over the past few months, the only person more unpopular than Clay Helton is Larry Scott. I think Helton is going to miss Larry Scott...

What I've yet to hear is any PAC school coming out and saying that they didn't want to own their own network. They wanted their rights.

It was a gamble, and it didn't work for them. But that's not all on Larry.

Call it what it is: he's a scapegoat/fall guy.

Larry Scott sold the Presidents on the idea of owning their own network. It has struggled because of distribution issues. I live in Southern California and I never saw a Pac-12 Network game from 2012 through 2016. It was not available until 2017 on Spectrum. It was not available at any sports bars in the area, since most of them are with DirecTV, which does not have an agreement with the Pac-12 Network. Since 33% of the Pac-12 football games are on the Pac-12 Network, that is a lot of football being missed. That is on Larry Scott to resolve and he has not resolved it.

Scott's lavish spending has been a constant issue within the conference. He has had a combative relationship with the Pac-12 athletic directors. They have asked for financials and Scott has refused to share that information with them, telling one AD: “You’re lucky for what you get.” For last year's Pac-12 basketball tournament, he stayed in a luxury suite that typically runs $7,500 per night. He needs to go. The Pac-12 needs a new commissioner that will work with the AD's, cut spending, increase revenue and develop relationships. Basically, the polar opposite of Larry Scott.
03-02-2020 03:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #27
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-02-2020 09:21 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Call it what it is: he's a scapegoat/fall guy.

I think Scott has been a lousy comish who is largely responsible for the PACN fiasco, but even if you are right I'd gladly be a "scapegoat/fall guy" for $5m a year plus a seemingly unlimited travel expense account. Want to hire me?

07-coffee3
03-02-2020 03:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #28
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-02-2020 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-02-2020 09:21 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Call it what it is: he's a scapegoat/fall guy.

I think Scott has been a lousy comish who is largely responsible for the PACN fiasco, but even if you are right I'd gladly be a "scapegoat/fall guy" for $5m a year plus a seemingly unlimited travel expense account. Want to hire me?

07-coffee3

Totally! What a great gig!

To be sure, the travel expense account is going to be higher in the Pac-12 if only for the fact that most of the schools are in legit real expensive cities as opposed to college towns. No conference commissioner is going to be slumming it with, say, local campus restaurants and hotels in Tempe when you can head next door to the resorts in Scottsdale. LA, SF and Seattle are always expensive, Denver and Salt Lake City are particularly expensive during ski season (which covers most of the school year), and their conference events in Las Vegas are inherently expensive. That's not to say that Scott isn't spending too much money, but his spending wouldn't be scrutinized as much if the Pac-12 Network were delivering the same amount of money as the Big Ten Network.
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2020 04:07 PM by Frank the Tank.)
03-02-2020 04:03 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #29
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-02-2020 04:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(03-02-2020 03:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-02-2020 09:21 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Call it what it is: he's a scapegoat/fall guy.

I think Scott has been a lousy comish who is largely responsible for the PACN fiasco, but even if you are right I'd gladly be a "scapegoat/fall guy" for $5m a year plus a seemingly unlimited travel expense account. Want to hire me?

07-coffee3

Totally! What a great gig!

To be sure, the travel expense account is going to be higher in the Pac-12 if only for the fact that most of the schools are in legit real expensive cities as opposed to college towns. No conference commissioner is going to be slumming it with, say, local campus restaurants and hotels in Tempe when you can head next door to the resorts in Scottsdale. LA, SF and Seattle are always expensive, Denver and Salt Lake City are particularly expensive during ski season (which covers most of the school year), and their conference events in Las Vegas are inherently expensive. That's not to say that Scott isn't spending too much money, but his spending wouldn't be scrutinized as much if the Pac-12 Network were delivering the same amount of money as the Big Ten Network.

Those who are saying that w/regards to the PACN Scott was merely the vessel for the wishes of the school presidents should recall this quote:

"However, in a pre-launch presentation attended by athletic directors, Scott dazzled the room by providing three ranges of annual payouts (once the networks had exited the start-up phase).

According to a source who attended the presentation, those payout ranges were:

High end: $7 million-to-$10 million per school per year

Middle: $5 million-to-$7 million per school per year

Low end: $3 million-to-$5 million per school per year."

So according to the article (linked below) Scott *sold* the schools on the PACN, which of course is what a comish is paid to do.

The article goes on to say that as of 2018 the payout had never exceeded $2.7m a year, and factoring in ongoing production costs, the PAC schools have actually averaged around $700k a year in net revenue. That's a bit below the "low end" projected by Scott.

https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/pac-12-...works.html
03-02-2020 04:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bluesox Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,295
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 84
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
Move hq to Las Vegas
Have b-ball and football title games in Las Vegas
Make pac 12 network 1 channel and partner with fox or espn
Invite OU, ok state, ku and k state
03-02-2020 04:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
CSNBB's Big 10 Cheerleader
*

Posts: 8,576
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 640
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #31
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-02-2020 04:37 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Move hq to Las Vegas
Have b-ball and football title games in Las Vegas
Make pac 12 network 1 channel and partner with fox or espn
Invite OU, ok state, ku and k state

Last time I checked the men's basketball and football title games are in Vegas.

Oklahoma State and Kansas State are dead weight. Why not Texas?
03-02-2020 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
The PAC 12 is getting killed on the national stage. Not very competitive in the revenue sports, mediocre TV ratings, losing top football recruits to Eastern teams, comparatively small media payouts and athletic budgets, etc.

Even out West, Boise State and the MWC make too big of a dent in the PAC 12's competitiveness and coverage. The MWC and WCC are likely to have 1 seeds in March Madness, while the PAC will be lucky to have more than a single team play a tournament game west of St. Louis.

All this while the PAC network overhead plus Scott's bloated salary are probably more than the per-school conference payouts.

Scott missed big time on his vision for the PAC 12 networks. There was a focus on a wholly-owned system with lofty amounts of non-revenue sports programming and multiple 2-team regional networks. Whiff.

Can you even find any of the PAC 12 networks on DirecTV yet? Embarrassing.
03-02-2020 06:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,262
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #33
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-02-2020 12:30 PM)schmolik Wrote:  When the Pac-12 first decided on their network model (not to partner with a broadcast partner), there weren't that many other comparisons. There was no SECN or ACCN, only the BTN and the Mountain West Sports Network, which failed. When you go without a sports network to back you up you get all of the benefits but you take on all the costs (and there were certainly a ton of them in the P12's case and that's what's hurting them). The BTN and SECN are succeeding but that's mainly because their products and brands are stronger. We'll see if the ACCN takes off. Certainly men's basketball is stronger (although this year is a down year for the ACC and a stunningly good one for the Pac-12) but the ACC outside of South Carolina isn't much better than the Pac-12. If the ACCN is more successful than the Pac-12, then the P12N really is a failure. If it isn't, then it's the on field product.

The reports that we have had, linked to the ACC board, from the media, is that the ACCN is doing very well and started with more subscribers than the SECN had when it started.
03-02-2020 07:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #34
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-02-2020 07:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(03-02-2020 12:30 PM)schmolik Wrote:  When the Pac-12 first decided on their network model (not to partner with a broadcast partner), there weren't that many other comparisons. There was no SECN or ACCN, only the BTN and the Mountain West Sports Network, which failed. When you go without a sports network to back you up you get all of the benefits but you take on all the costs (and there were certainly a ton of them in the P12's case and that's what's hurting them). The BTN and SECN are succeeding but that's mainly because their products and brands are stronger. We'll see if the ACCN takes off. Certainly men's basketball is stronger (although this year is a down year for the ACC and a stunningly good one for the Pac-12) but the ACC outside of South Carolina isn't much better than the Pac-12. If the ACCN is more successful than the Pac-12, then the P12N really is a failure. If it isn't, then it's the on field product.

The reports that we have had, linked to the ACC board, from the media, is that the ACCN is doing very well and started with more subscribers than the SECN had when it started.

I don't doubt that, but that was inevitable given the success of the SECN. ESPN has basically piggybacked the ACCN off of the SECN.
03-02-2020 07:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,262
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 546
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #35
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-02-2020 07:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-02-2020 07:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(03-02-2020 12:30 PM)schmolik Wrote:  When the Pac-12 first decided on their network model (not to partner with a broadcast partner), there weren't that many other comparisons. There was no SECN or ACCN, only the BTN and the Mountain West Sports Network, which failed. When you go without a sports network to back you up you get all of the benefits but you take on all the costs (and there were certainly a ton of them in the P12's case and that's what's hurting them). The BTN and SECN are succeeding but that's mainly because their products and brands are stronger. We'll see if the ACCN takes off. Certainly men's basketball is stronger (although this year is a down year for the ACC and a stunningly good one for the Pac-12) but the ACC outside of South Carolina isn't much better than the Pac-12. If the ACCN is more successful than the Pac-12, then the P12N really is a failure. If it isn't, then it's the on field product.

The reports that we have had, linked to the ACC board, from the media, is that the ACCN is doing very well and started with more subscribers than the SECN had when it started.

I don't doubt that, but that was inevitable given the success of the SECN. ESPN has basically piggybacked the ACCN off of the SECN.

Also, ESPN would have gained a lot of insight from their experience with the SECN getting started that they were able to use to get the ACCN going. The PACN could have benefited from this same experience and influence.
(This post was last modified: 03-02-2020 10:06 PM by cuseroc.)
03-02-2020 10:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wolfman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,459
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 181
I Root For: The Cartel
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #36
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
Larry Scott can't rubber stamp anything. He has no power. He can't bind the P12 or any of it's schools to a contract other than the lease on an office building. Maybe.

Presidents are academics. They hire a commissioner to oversee the daily operations of the sports conference. It's also his job to be aware off the landscape and advise the presidents. I think he has failed across the board in that aspect.
03-02-2020 11:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
CSNBB's Big 10 Cheerleader
*

Posts: 8,576
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 640
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #37
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
Remember the #1 cure for the Pac-12's financial woes? His name is Bevo (and #2 is Sooner). Larry Scott does have a relationship with the two schools. Do you trust Scott to bring them to the Pac-12? Would you trust a new commissioner with no relationship with Texas and Oklahoma to be able to bring them to the Pac-12? The conference would be in much better shape with UT/UO in it and will be doomed to second class status without them.
03-03-2020 06:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #38
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-03-2020 06:15 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Remember the #1 cure for the Pac-12's financial woes? His name is Bevo (and #2 is Sooner). Larry Scott does have a relationship with the two schools. Do you trust Scott to bring them to the Pac-12? Would you trust a new commissioner with no relationship with Texas and Oklahoma to be able to bring them to the Pac-12? The conference would be in much better shape with UT/UO in it and will be doomed to second class status without them.

Remember, the PAC has never struggled to be a first-class conference without Bevo, so there's no reason to think they need Texas now. Would it be great for the PAC to have Texas? Sure, but it would be great for any conference to have Texas so nothing unique there.

The PAC is generating a lot of revenue, the problem is on the cost side thanks to the structure of the PACN.

Fortunately for the PAC, this is a correctable problem. They have the ESPN/FOX deal coming due in 2024, and they can always end the PACN and better utilize the considerable content tied up in it now.
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2020 09:57 AM by quo vadis.)
03-03-2020 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #39
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-02-2020 10:04 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(03-02-2020 07:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(03-02-2020 07:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(03-02-2020 12:30 PM)schmolik Wrote:  When the Pac-12 first decided on their network model (not to partner with a broadcast partner), there weren't that many other comparisons. There was no SECN or ACCN, only the BTN and the Mountain West Sports Network, which failed. When you go without a sports network to back you up you get all of the benefits but you take on all the costs (and there were certainly a ton of them in the P12's case and that's what's hurting them). The BTN and SECN are succeeding but that's mainly because their products and brands are stronger. We'll see if the ACCN takes off. Certainly men's basketball is stronger (although this year is a down year for the ACC and a stunningly good one for the Pac-12) but the ACC outside of South Carolina isn't much better than the Pac-12. If the ACCN is more successful than the Pac-12, then the P12N really is a failure. If it isn't, then it's the on field product.

The reports that we have had, linked to the ACC board, from the media, is that the ACCN is doing very well and started with more subscribers than the SECN had when it started.

I don't doubt that, but that was inevitable given the success of the SECN. ESPN has basically piggybacked the ACCN off of the SECN.

Also, ESPN would have gained a lot of insight from their experience with the SECN getting started that they were able to use to get the ACCN going. The PACN could have benefited from this same experience and influence.

Thing is, for all the troubles with the PACN, they haven't done anything that can't be quickly undone. E.g., just a few months ago ESPN offered to distribute the PACN, in exchange for an extension of their rights that expire in 2024 out in to the 2030s, much as they have with the SEC and ACC. The PAC said no.

So the PAC is still wedded to the current model, which is to try a massive cash-in in 2024, despite the obvious restlessness among the members. But unlike the SEC (save for the CBS package) and ACC, who are basically beholden to ESPN until the 2030s, the PAC does still have options and flexibility.
03-03-2020 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Larry Scott's future being discussed
(03-03-2020 06:15 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Remember the #1 cure for the Pac-12's financial woes? His name is Bevo (and #2 is Sooner). Larry Scott does have a relationship with the two schools. Do you trust Scott to bring them to the Pac-12? Would you trust a new commissioner with no relationship with Texas and Oklahoma to be able to bring them to the Pac-12? The conference would be in much better shape with UT/UO in it and will be doomed to second class status without them.

I absolutely 100% agree that the PAC would be in much better shape with Texas and Oklahoma.

But, what makes you think that Bevo or Boomer would want Scott running the show if they were to join the PAC? They can see the clown show.

There's likely a higher chance to actually grab Texas and Oklahoma if Scott is gone.
03-03-2020 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.