Larry Scott was a disaster. He was largely responsible for the demise of a great, 100-year old conference. On a personal level, he was an arrogant, two-faced egomaniac who never met a microphone he didn't like. Thousands of athletes and coaches, and millions of fans, will continue to suffer because of his incompetence and duplicity.
But the schools that enabled him have a big piece of the blame.
My brother back in 2015 was talking about the 2 LA schools splitting off to whoever would listen, he was just laughed at. He would rightly laugh at the P12 today. He had me convinced by 2016 that an explosion was coming.
To this day, still can't comprehend how the PAC 12 hired an elitist Harvard tennis player as commissioner of this conference. John, I am still amazed at the investigative reporting that you did on Limo Larry to uncover how out of touch he was with the conference.
I had one long-time Pac-12 staffer tell me that they presidents and chancellors were so focused on their own budgets and often buried in their own campuses... they didn't really monitor Larry.
The Ivy League schools are way over-credited with smart and savvy leadership types. Maybe a generation ago that was true. Now the Ivy League only cranks out entitled, self-indulgent Elitists and far-left militants who want to tear down the very institutions that are spending taxpayer and donor money giving them elite opportunities.
Over the last 15 years of my career I hired dozens of marketing managers and staff. After going through a lot of candidates I had learned a a lot about the "value" of education. When I saw an Ivy league school on the resume I would put it aside. My experience was that the vast majority of these workers weren't willing to roll up their sleeves and learn the business.
I did the same Steven. I learned to give long looks at candidates from commuter schools, who had to really grind to get through school as well as strong public universities like OSU, U of O, FSU, WSU, U of W, SDSU, etc. If you also had a year or 2 of junior college hidden in there you really got my attention!
This is a great tribe JC has put together. A lot of sharp, thoughtful, comments with only a very few AH's and even then, they typically exhibit some level of civility.
I haven't thought kindly of anything to do with Harvard since the movie "Love Story" (I had a case of puppy love for Ali McGraw). The school, its staff, students and faculty are contemptible. I am sure there are exceptions, but I haven't seen any in the past 30 years. Yale, Princeton (once the center on the planet for scientific progress), Cornell, Dartmouth, Penn. All are in the same camp of overpriced and underperforming (being kind) universities.
As a graduate of 2 Ivies and the UofO generalities tend to be inaccurate. The STEM research is impeccable whereas the soft sciences tend to be taken over by the most active/Activists. What is really depressing is their endowments, ex. Princeton at 35$ Billion, are not leveraged as best they could be. Focus is $ retention and acquisition, less on utilization, thus, the schools tend to be more financial institutions than educational. Needed Gamechanger opportunities are missed. Sensitivity to, productive action in, the inter-Nation competition is avoided . . . to our/USA detriment. 2 cents
Generalities are ALWAYS inaccurate in the literal sense. It is in the definition of the word. But that linguistic shortcut also allows a picture of dramatic change to be painted. But I appreciate your contribution here. We are saying something similar from different perspectives.
John…always great stuff, but this one gave me chills for reasons you would not believe. Duncan McDonald, a University of Oregon journalism professor when I attended in the late ‘80s, had the identical contempt for the word “actually”. I never thought that nightmare of a memory would ever resurface. Thank you…actually
My grandfather broke us kids of the habit of saying ‘ya know’ (80’s). Use of word ‘actually’ in prose reminds me of that lazy speech. Gramps was teaching us to just say what we mean, and boy am I glad he did so.
This reminded me of my 6th grade class teacher. He hated the words "get and "got" and thought they were both lazy speech. We were dinged for using those two words. For example: Instead of "I got an award", we'd instead use "I received an award" or "I was chosen as a recipient of an award".
My parents lost their home to bank in early 80's, so us 5 kids grew up under grandpa's roof until my dad went back to school, etc. My grandpa would sit in his chair and if you spoke to him and used phrase 'you know' he'd not say a thing back. Instead, he'd raise his eyebrow + tilt the head, and then whip out a thumb signaling you used lazy speech 1-time. If you did it again in same convo, a 2nd finger would come out. Rarely did you want to disappoint and cause a 3rd. This was a guy born in 1911 and he taught me so much, this just one example.
Stories like this are a great reason for intergenerational living in families. My wife and I have had 2 of our 3 granddaughters live with us at various time periods over the past few years as their mother navigated the end of a difficult marriage. It has been a good experience for all of us. Not always easy, but both sides, both us and the GD's, learned a lot about each other and how we look at life. The oldest, now in college, lived with us during her first year in college. We had an opportunity to coach her through the need to raise her effort level, expect more from herself and understand that, contrary to Instagram, being an adult is frequently unglamourous!!
Grandads are great. I loved mine and stayed with my grandparents quite often. I was surprised to learn from my dad that grandad was not such a great dad when he was in his 20s. He was short-tempered and mean. Unbelievable to me because he was the opposite as my grandad. I suppose in your 20s you are just a bit more than a teen and really don't have life figured out. By your 50s/60s you have a pretty good idea what matters and therefore are more at ease with yourself and the world making you a better "dad" candidate :-)
I’m still convinced USC and UCLA purposely voted against Pac12 interests like when we had the opportunity to absorb the big 12 after they had the departures of Texas and Oklahoma.
That makes no sense. Why would they harm their own interest? Stop pretending like they wanted to leave PAC-12. They didn’t. Leaving the conference was a last resort. They had no other choice.
Had a USC athletic department source tell me there were bad feelings for years over the even revenue distribution. They didn't like sharing with schools that weren't as valuable. The way I see it, Kliavkoff and Scott should have been very tuned into that sentiment.
USC is blessed with being in the middle of a very large and somewhat wealthy city. They should have the humility to understand that it is just good fortune that gives them higher broadcast revenues with a stadium built by the state taxpayers (their 100,000 seat stadium was built for the 1932 Olympics in 1923 as a WW1 veterans memorial). When you are blessed with good fortune you should share. The New York Yankees face the same dilemma / opportunity, though as a privately owned pro sport, it is a little bit more understandable they want to keep all their income for themselves and not share with the smaller market teams that make competition possible.
UCLA and USC were the only ones who voted against adding the Big 12 teams. It makes perfect sense as to why they were already in talks with the Big 10. And UCLA and USC had every choice to stay. They chose to leave literally no one “had to leave”. Quit trying to make yourself feel better about your team destroying a 108 year old conference.
UCLA and USC couldn't have been the only ones against adding Big 12 teams after UT and OU left that conference. The Pac-12 rules, per a change instituted by Larry, provided that it only took 9 yes votes to invite a new member. So there would have had to be at least 3 votes against.
THAT, is pure unadulterated BS! There is always a choice...It may not be the choice you prefer, but there is always a choice. UCLA's president conspired with USC's president and the outgoing B1G commissioner to bring the two of them secretly into the B1G and they kept their decision to themselves for over a year. They had a choice!
UCLA is in a deep hole financially. I believe the move to the BIG10 is actually going to kill their football program. Chip jumped off the boat as it was pulling away from the dock. He is a smart cat and saw the new the world was flat for the Bruins, and they were likely going over the edge. (And, no I am not a Chipster homer.) DeShaun Foster is going to need a cape and a magic wand to help them. The craziest part is that they may have the most beautiful campus in the PAC 12, with an extremely wealthy alumni base in West LA who should have a collective dwarfing U of O, U of W, USC, etc. etc. As a native Oregonian having previously lived in southern California for 40 years, I am still scratching my head over their leadership. I have a lot of Bruin friends including one who was an All American QB there. NONE of them are happy about the move to the BIG whatever the number is now!!! Their leaving makes zero sense.
Perhaps not UCLA. However, USC have always had one foot out the door. They became a flight risk for quite a long time. Before heading to the B1G, they flirted with the idea of becoming an independent similar in fashion to Notre Dame.
Even with all the missteps, the conference was still salvageable in Aug 2023 when the Apple deal was offered and tentatively accepted. The $32M per school and adding SDSU would have worked. It will go down in college sports history that Oregon and Washington drove the final nail in the Pac12 coffin, being used as pawns by FOX to keep AppleTV out of CFB. Both a bad and sad move to kill the Pac12 conference.
The total distribution might have worked, but the Pac-12 would have taken a big step backwards in revenue and recruiting in comparison to what we now see as values and network affiliates in the BigTen. I think UW in particular was worried about the erosion that would occur during the term of an Apple agreement (and, wouldn't have benefited much from The CW as seen in the ACC's CW TV ratings). The outcome was that UW ended up in the Big Ten now, with higher potential future revenue. If they had been asking to join at the end of the Apple deal, the discount then would have been even more severe.
The four Pac12 schools going to the Big Ten immediately get higher Playoff shares and NCAA Tournament shares. There are also a couple other smaller revenue pools such as added revenue from more Big Ten teams in bowls. The lower media rights for UW and UO are true, but they are only a part of the BigTen revenue picture. The rest is unaffected. I understand the interest in "partial shares" but that is only true for a portion of the total. The rest is a 100 percent share. As a result, both UW and UO will immediately benefit over what Pac-12 would have been.
The travel costs have been overstated also. There are some sports that have no home-and-home...they are tournament type meetings. When UW flies to several Midwest destinations, it is no more than a flight to Tucson. Will it be more? Likely. Will it be $10M more, very unlikely.
Might the rejected Apple deal have increased? yes. Just like the Big10, Big 12 deals will increase. Neither Apple or B1G were a static number, but the latter is starting from a much higher base.
I guess they picked up the hammer after USC and UCLA bailed. Then Colorado bailed. Then Arizona was in negotiations with the Big 12, which is what drove the Big Ten to call UW. Within minutes of the UW/UO announcement, Arizona finalized the Big12 move. That didn't happen without pre-negotiations. So, you expected UW/UO to stick around with 6 others, add the Aztecs, and have USC/UCLA market football gone, and Arizona basketball gone, which were the assets driving the value of the Pac12? There would have been no leverage to increase the $32 in the future....and by the way, it was not $32M. It was in the high 20's.
The media value in the B1G, and conference shares from the CFP and NCAA Tournament, the exposure from multi-networks... it was a no-brainer decision for UW. Some say UO was a tag along after the B1G dropped Stanford. Maybe, I don't know.
There's nothing more pathetic than a UO fan denying any culpability and pointing the finger at everybody else. The truth is, the deal was in place and Oregon and UW had agreed to sign the AppleTV deal, as was accurately reported the morning of, then FOX came in and sabotaged the deal using UO and UW as decoys. This was always about keeping AppleTV out of a CFB broadcasting platform. The BiG10 didn't want any more members until FOX told them who is what.
I'd have more respect if you just said "We had our reasons for leaving and we killed the conference"
I think the UO was right to leave. I’m happy they left. My own personal opinion is that any entity as poorly run as the PAC12 deserves to die. So good riddance to the PAC12.
Are UO and UW partially responsible for the collapse of the conference? Yes. But who cares? If 3 schools had already left, and UO+UW decided the Apple deal wasn’t worth it, why would they even want to stay? How could anyone argue with or complain about the decision, when moving to the Big10 is so obviously a better move?
You really need to change your name. Sunshine simply does not fit your bitter diatribes.
I wish that a decent linear deal was available, but it was not. The Apple deal was only appealing if no other options were available and when UO and UW we’re faced with the choice of zero linear TV or a Big 10 deal that will likely generate well in excess of 600 million dollars over the next decade, only a complete moron would have gone with the “ disappear into obscurity” Apple deal.
LA Times: Kliavkoff reportedly presented his schools with the details of a potential media rights agreement with Apple on Tuesday. The deal would put the Pac-12 games mostly on streaming and offer minimal linear cable and broadcast options. For the Western schools that have already struggled with exposure over the last decade, that idea apparently did not sit well.
Here’s what changed: Thanks in part to the addition of USC and UCLA, the Big Ten struck a massive, historic TV deal worth $8 billion over seven years. As part of it, the league would have to present each of Fox, NBC and CBS with a desirable national game every week that is worthy of their investment.
Those who follow TV ratings point to 4 million in viewership as the magic number for the networks. Would the Big Ten, with 16 teams, be able to hit that number three times per Saturday, for each network, especially when factoring in bye weeks? The Big Ten eventually would need to add teams again, whether it was from the West or from the ACC or both, to please the networks. The Big Ten saw an opening to strike and did not hesitate.
(At that time, The Times reported Kliakoff's number was in the $20's for each of the 10 schools, then 9 schools after Colorado couldn't stomach further value erosion. Subsequently the $32M number has been used, not sure how it got inflated to $32M)
The 32 mil number was possible if they achieved something like 1.75 mil subscribers. The base number was reportedly 22-23 mil, and then raised to a base of 25.
The Apple deal was dogshit, it underpaid most schools and had no guaranteed linear exposure. Almost everyone in the conference is better off without it.
I'm angry about the death of a great conference. The Pac10/12 is the only conference I've ever cared about in my entire life. I've been a Beaver fan since 1978 and if I have to come here and read what JC writes and talk about it, that's what I'm gonna do.
“Actually” John….. wonderful article. So many people made bad decisions that destroyed this wonderful Pac12 conference “as we knew it”.
Your English teacher taught you well. Brought back a memory from my high school days of my English teacher in my Junior and Senior years of high school. She was the former wife of Supreme Court justice William O Douglas. She was delightful to listen to and a good teacher. Who would have thought that my class of 14 students in a very small high school in Eastern Oregon would have had her for a teacher. I was lucky.
I don’t have much to say, except that trying to prop up what’s left of the conference seems futile. Very sad indeed. All that history. Just memories soon. The remaining members need to find permanent homes. Sure, we can hope for realignment again; hope for long-term stability instead.
Thank you, John. The entire point of the legal fight last year was to buy time to reconstruct the conference in some fashion. Why throw in the towel right now? At least use the time granted by the legal victory to find out if it can be done. Money is leverage
What portion of the massive liabilities for the PAC 12 that are coming from the House settlement will be borne by the PAC 2 and what will be the other guys share? How was that negotiated? Seems like 250 million is not a lot for the conference.
They’ve got the money already, John… use it to campaign toward a power conference. I still can’t believe no one would want them. A “group” conference partnership does them no good.
If they give up and go to a G5... the NCAA Tournament revenue reverts to the original schools that earned it. That's $60M out of your pocket. Also, the potential $100M of Rose Bowl money belongs to all 12 not the 2. You don't abandon assets. That's not wise.
Actually, the more we peel back this onion, the more we find USC’s and UCLA’s stink on everything. We had a chance to poach Big 12 teams and strengthen our conference and they blocked it. Same with the private equity? If they knew they were leaving years ago, why did they insist on sabotaging every effort to improve the Pac-12?
USC did not want UW and UO in the same conference competing for recruits in So. Cal. Until Colorado and Arizona decided to bail out, the B1G was willing to comply with USC's wishes. USC also felt "victimized" by the Pac's equal shares and wanted to screw over schools they felt were unwilling to vote for unequal shares.
As usual John you get us thinking but I am not ready to se the PAC "evaporate like a puddle on the summer sidewalk. " What is true is at this point football power is down to just 2 dominant conferences with the occasional outliers or cinderellas that the CFP might bring. But also true is that no big TV draws are left in the Big12 and the ACC's biggest prizes (FSU, lLemson, & UNC) all want out of the ACC. So for me if we get a rebuilt PAC12 that focuses on all other great West Coast sports (soccer, vball, gymnastics, tennis, golf, softball, baseball, xcountry/track & field, and basketball with conference championships on the West Coast that would keep this 108 year conference alive. It will take some compromises from the Big10 to just take SC/UO/UW/UCLA in football only and some ACC implosions that frees Stanford & Cal to come back then that would allow WSU/PSU to just invite 4 more to reestablish the PAC football conference but it is certainly doable. Most importanlty it make sense and I'd still feel if it happens the PAC12 Conference of Champions would still be alive and not evaporated. My guess a lot of people would celebrate a return like that..
For me. I personally want to wait until the fat lady sings to say it's all over with PAC's demise.
Even without football, you cannot have a conference where four schools earn more than $100 million in TV/CFP revenue to be spent supporting all athletic programs, while six others earn half that and two others earn one-fourth of that.
I am 85 and will miss PAC 12 as I grew up in a house without a TV and before MLB, so I was a voracious sports section reader. Now I have a man cave with three screens. And an agile remote and on demand and your podcasts.
Not sure that's true. The draw of those 4 will raise the opportunities for the rest of the league much like Notre Dame does for the ACC right now. The last thing any of the ACC teams want is to lose ND to another conference even though they aren't in their football conference. Part of the PAC deal could be that those 4 teams guarantee to each play some a non-con football game (or even 2) against the 8 Pac football teams like ND does with the 14 ACC teams. That would help them get a much better TV contract much like the ACC got a better TV football contract knowing the conference gets 2.5 home ACC games on ESPN/ABC against ND every year. Plus ND is one of the biggest non-football sport draws on ESPN/ACCN/ESPN+. I'm sure those 4 teams with their brands would help that TV contract as well.
As for revenue there already is a massive gap between the haves and have nots in the same conference. Oregon and Washington were top 2 public athletic programs in the PAC12 and WSU/OSU were the worst 2 with the same media contract. Here's the compare of the 4 NW PAC12 schools: #1 Oregon Total Revenue in 2022: $153,510,555, Total Expenses: $140,565,297, National Ranking: 19th
#2 Washington Total Revenue in 2022: $145,184,864 Total Expenses: $149,458,923
National Ranking: 25th
#9 WSU Total Revenue in 2022: $85,028,825 Total Expenses: $83,691,991 National Ranking: 53rd
#10 OSU Total Revenue in 2022: $83,480,015 Total Expenses: $87,729,627,National Ranking: 54th
Stanford and USC are not included being private and the data is in this USA today article in the address below.
As the PAC 12 wraps up, I want to start focusing forward. It is time to get excited about the future and what that will entail. I want to see Wazzu kick butt against all comers and have a great season in ALL sports. Go Cougs!
Some, not all, University Presidents are from academic backgrounds. They naturally gravitate towards group think that this bunch are immersed in. The lack of common sense among this "club" is displayed frequently in comments and opinions on an array of topics from them. These academic elites have proven to us that they cannot define a woman, or what is "Free speech", as examples. Males being allowed to participate in Women's sports is a jaw dropping example of the naivete. To think these people are savvy enough to fight in their weight class with free market entrepreneurial interests is not realistic. This is especially true when athletics are involved. That is confirmed by the lack of foresight when the Apple Deal was cast aside. The bottom line? These folks have become insignificant in a swirling storm of change in collegiate athletics, supposedly expert in things that they know nothing about. As such, they line up and are led about by aggressive media interests..
I was a fan when it was the PAC 8. Then the pac 10, finally the pac 12… I’m old and don’t care anymore. The good old days no longer matter. Bobby Moore. Tom Graham Ronnie Lee. Just memories … adrift.
Enjoyed the reflections on Prof. Lams. As a high school senior I had A grade papers in English composition. My first two submissions in college were D- and D. Boy, was that an ego deflator. But, had a prof who was very good in explaining why. By end of term, the final semester grade was B+. And, his instruction provided me a lifetime skill set that helped me in my professional business career.
The demise of the PAC will be a wonderful business school case study, full of incompetence, indecision, and ego among the key players.
Even more interesting will be how it is presented at OSU and WSU versus at the departing schools, especially UW and UO. UCLA will be even more fun to witness now that “Calimony” is a reality.
John, keep trying to get George K. in an interview. You raised a good point about "Limo Larry" (Nice Dave G) and his lack of "full disclosures on the handoff" to George. No restrictions, no editorial approval with George. Some skeletons are sure to surface.
I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that remaining staff or Presidents didn't tell him.
As for Scott, he lined up what was a very good contract when first hired and then lined up a $1 Billion media interest sale that would have solved a number of problems. He was also the person who lined up the media contracts so that they were aligned and expired at the same time.
I know I am in the minority, but I never agreed with and still don't agree with the criticism of Scott. He did what he needed to do and USC/UCLA said no.
Lining up a private equity firm is a slippery slope and would have picked apart the Pac-12 just like realignment did.
What he should have done is accepted ESPNs offer to acquire part of the network. That may not have put the conference on par with the SEC but it still would have provided stability and exposure that the conference severely lacked
Good point, around "....remaining staff or Presidents.....", they share much of the blame. They also waaaaay overpaid for him. Even "Comps" of other Commissioners suggested that. Classic academic poor leadership with never any financial accountability. The schools always get bailed out.
Larry Scott was a disaster. He was largely responsible for the demise of a great, 100-year old conference. On a personal level, he was an arrogant, two-faced egomaniac who never met a microphone he didn't like. Thousands of athletes and coaches, and millions of fans, will continue to suffer because of his incompetence and duplicity.
Well put.
Pretty much what I think of Scott. It let’s not forget about the idiots that allowed him to kill the Pac 12 .
But the schools that enabled him have a big piece of the blame.
My brother back in 2015 was talking about the 2 LA schools splitting off to whoever would listen, he was just laughed at. He would rightly laugh at the P12 today. He had me convinced by 2016 that an explosion was coming.
Your brother was right. And there were plenty of warning signs and rumors when Kliavkoff took over. He gets the rest of the blame.
VERY WELL said Gary!
To this day, still can't comprehend how the PAC 12 hired an elitist Harvard tennis player as commissioner of this conference. John, I am still amazed at the investigative reporting that you did on Limo Larry to uncover how out of touch he was with the conference.
I had one long-time Pac-12 staffer tell me that they presidents and chancellors were so focused on their own budgets and often buried in their own campuses... they didn't really monitor Larry.
That's why the ADs should have overseen Scott, not the presidents/chancellors.
And then replace him with a Boston University rower like George Kliavkoff.
Needed someone who had actually played a sport that generated revenue... or at least understood it.
The Ivy League schools are way over-credited with smart and savvy leadership types. Maybe a generation ago that was true. Now the Ivy League only cranks out entitled, self-indulgent Elitists and far-left militants who want to tear down the very institutions that are spending taxpayer and donor money giving them elite opportunities.
Over the last 15 years of my career I hired dozens of marketing managers and staff. After going through a lot of candidates I had learned a a lot about the "value" of education. When I saw an Ivy league school on the resume I would put it aside. My experience was that the vast majority of these workers weren't willing to roll up their sleeves and learn the business.
I did the same Steven. I learned to give long looks at candidates from commuter schools, who had to really grind to get through school as well as strong public universities like OSU, U of O, FSU, WSU, U of W, SDSU, etc. If you also had a year or 2 of junior college hidden in there you really got my attention!
GREAT point about the junior college or community college experience.
Appreciate the comment Steven!!!
This is a great tribe JC has put together. A lot of sharp, thoughtful, comments with only a very few AH's and even then, they typically exhibit some level of civility.
I haven't thought kindly of anything to do with Harvard since the movie "Love Story" (I had a case of puppy love for Ali McGraw). The school, its staff, students and faculty are contemptible. I am sure there are exceptions, but I haven't seen any in the past 30 years. Yale, Princeton (once the center on the planet for scientific progress), Cornell, Dartmouth, Penn. All are in the same camp of overpriced and underperforming (being kind) universities.
As a graduate of 2 Ivies and the UofO generalities tend to be inaccurate. The STEM research is impeccable whereas the soft sciences tend to be taken over by the most active/Activists. What is really depressing is their endowments, ex. Princeton at 35$ Billion, are not leveraged as best they could be. Focus is $ retention and acquisition, less on utilization, thus, the schools tend to be more financial institutions than educational. Needed Gamechanger opportunities are missed. Sensitivity to, productive action in, the inter-Nation competition is avoided . . . to our/USA detriment. 2 cents
Generalities are ALWAYS inaccurate in the literal sense. It is in the definition of the word. But that linguistic shortcut also allows a picture of dramatic change to be painted. But I appreciate your contribution here. We are saying something similar from different perspectives.
Amen and arrogant on top of that!
He was not a great leader.
John…always great stuff, but this one gave me chills for reasons you would not believe. Duncan McDonald, a University of Oregon journalism professor when I attended in the late ‘80s, had the identical contempt for the word “actually”. I never thought that nightmare of a memory would ever resurface. Thank you…actually
The words "actually"... and "really" and "seems" set off red flags for me.
It actually really seems to be a good idea 😉
My most dislikes are be, been, were, was... Mostly useless words that mix up tenses in a sentence
My grandfather broke us kids of the habit of saying ‘ya know’ (80’s). Use of word ‘actually’ in prose reminds me of that lazy speech. Gramps was teaching us to just say what we mean, and boy am I glad he did so.
he was wise
This reminded me of my 6th grade class teacher. He hated the words "get and "got" and thought they were both lazy speech. We were dinged for using those two words. For example: Instead of "I got an award", we'd instead use "I received an award" or "I was chosen as a recipient of an award".
yes yes yes
My parents lost their home to bank in early 80's, so us 5 kids grew up under grandpa's roof until my dad went back to school, etc. My grandpa would sit in his chair and if you spoke to him and used phrase 'you know' he'd not say a thing back. Instead, he'd raise his eyebrow + tilt the head, and then whip out a thumb signaling you used lazy speech 1-time. If you did it again in same convo, a 2nd finger would come out. Rarely did you want to disappoint and cause a 3rd. This was a guy born in 1911 and he taught me so much, this just one example.
Stories like this are a great reason for intergenerational living in families. My wife and I have had 2 of our 3 granddaughters live with us at various time periods over the past few years as their mother navigated the end of a difficult marriage. It has been a good experience for all of us. Not always easy, but both sides, both us and the GD's, learned a lot about each other and how we look at life. The oldest, now in college, lived with us during her first year in college. We had an opportunity to coach her through the need to raise her effort level, expect more from herself and understand that, contrary to Instagram, being an adult is frequently unglamourous!!
Grandads are great. I loved mine and stayed with my grandparents quite often. I was surprised to learn from my dad that grandad was not such a great dad when he was in his 20s. He was short-tempered and mean. Unbelievable to me because he was the opposite as my grandad. I suppose in your 20s you are just a bit more than a teen and really don't have life figured out. By your 50s/60s you have a pretty good idea what matters and therefore are more at ease with yourself and the world making you a better "dad" candidate :-)
I love this!!
Fellow J-School graduate. I also recall Duncan's disdain for "actually" and a few more of my lazy words.
Lams would just write "weak word" or "weak language" at the top and give you a C+
The Pac-12....proof that really smart people really aren't all that smart.
One can be "smart" without being wise.
Nah....in this situation they weren't even smart.
They were merely narcissists sitting on their high horses.
You don't have to be smart to be a narcissist. You're raising their bar a little high.
DITTO!
I’m still convinced USC and UCLA purposely voted against Pac12 interests like when we had the opportunity to absorb the big 12 after they had the departures of Texas and Oklahoma.
Will keep digging...
That makes no sense. Why would they harm their own interest? Stop pretending like they wanted to leave PAC-12. They didn’t. Leaving the conference was a last resort. They had no other choice.
Had a USC athletic department source tell me there were bad feelings for years over the even revenue distribution. They didn't like sharing with schools that weren't as valuable. The way I see it, Kliavkoff and Scott should have been very tuned into that sentiment.
USC is blessed with being in the middle of a very large and somewhat wealthy city. They should have the humility to understand that it is just good fortune that gives them higher broadcast revenues with a stadium built by the state taxpayers (their 100,000 seat stadium was built for the 1932 Olympics in 1923 as a WW1 veterans memorial). When you are blessed with good fortune you should share. The New York Yankees face the same dilemma / opportunity, though as a privately owned pro sport, it is a little bit more understandable they want to keep all their income for themselves and not share with the smaller market teams that make competition possible.
UCLA and USC were the only ones who voted against adding the Big 12 teams. It makes perfect sense as to why they were already in talks with the Big 10. And UCLA and USC had every choice to stay. They chose to leave literally no one “had to leave”. Quit trying to make yourself feel better about your team destroying a 108 year old conference.
UCLA and USC couldn't have been the only ones against adding Big 12 teams after UT and OU left that conference. The Pac-12 rules, per a change instituted by Larry, provided that it only took 9 yes votes to invite a new member. So there would have had to be at least 3 votes against.
To add members it required a unanimous vote. To vote on operations in the conference it required 9.
THAT, is pure unadulterated BS! There is always a choice...It may not be the choice you prefer, but there is always a choice. UCLA's president conspired with USC's president and the outgoing B1G commissioner to bring the two of them secretly into the B1G and they kept their decision to themselves for over a year. They had a choice!
You really believe UCLA had to leave? I'm not buying it. I hope they enjoy paying $10M of "Calimony" for the next few years to Berkeley.
I don't think UCLA is going to end up better off in the big ten. Still at a tremendous disadvantage.
UCLA is in a deep hole financially. I believe the move to the BIG10 is actually going to kill their football program. Chip jumped off the boat as it was pulling away from the dock. He is a smart cat and saw the new the world was flat for the Bruins, and they were likely going over the edge. (And, no I am not a Chipster homer.) DeShaun Foster is going to need a cape and a magic wand to help them. The craziest part is that they may have the most beautiful campus in the PAC 12, with an extremely wealthy alumni base in West LA who should have a collective dwarfing U of O, U of W, USC, etc. etc. As a native Oregonian having previously lived in southern California for 40 years, I am still scratching my head over their leadership. I have a lot of Bruin friends including one who was an All American QB there. NONE of them are happy about the move to the BIG whatever the number is now!!! Their leaving makes zero sense.
Seriously? Don’t be so defensive, man. UO and UW followed in your schools’ footsteps.
Perhaps not UCLA. However, USC have always had one foot out the door. They became a flight risk for quite a long time. Before heading to the B1G, they flirted with the idea of becoming an independent similar in fashion to Notre Dame.
Even with all the missteps, the conference was still salvageable in Aug 2023 when the Apple deal was offered and tentatively accepted. The $32M per school and adding SDSU would have worked. It will go down in college sports history that Oregon and Washington drove the final nail in the Pac12 coffin, being used as pawns by FOX to keep AppleTV out of CFB. Both a bad and sad move to kill the Pac12 conference.
I think the Apple deal with The CW as a linear distributor would have worked.
The total distribution might have worked, but the Pac-12 would have taken a big step backwards in revenue and recruiting in comparison to what we now see as values and network affiliates in the BigTen. I think UW in particular was worried about the erosion that would occur during the term of an Apple agreement (and, wouldn't have benefited much from The CW as seen in the ACC's CW TV ratings). The outcome was that UW ended up in the Big Ten now, with higher potential future revenue. If they had been asking to join at the end of the Apple deal, the discount then would have been even more severe.
It is only a guess they have higher potential in the Big10. There are many years ahead of lower media rights payout and way more travel costs.
You simply don't know if the Apple deal didn't end up paying the same by the time UW will become full members...
The four Pac12 schools going to the Big Ten immediately get higher Playoff shares and NCAA Tournament shares. There are also a couple other smaller revenue pools such as added revenue from more Big Ten teams in bowls. The lower media rights for UW and UO are true, but they are only a part of the BigTen revenue picture. The rest is unaffected. I understand the interest in "partial shares" but that is only true for a portion of the total. The rest is a 100 percent share. As a result, both UW and UO will immediately benefit over what Pac-12 would have been.
The travel costs have been overstated also. There are some sports that have no home-and-home...they are tournament type meetings. When UW flies to several Midwest destinations, it is no more than a flight to Tucson. Will it be more? Likely. Will it be $10M more, very unlikely.
Might the rejected Apple deal have increased? yes. Just like the Big10, Big 12 deals will increase. Neither Apple or B1G were a static number, but the latter is starting from a much higher base.
I guess they picked up the hammer after USC and UCLA bailed. Then Colorado bailed. Then Arizona was in negotiations with the Big 12, which is what drove the Big Ten to call UW. Within minutes of the UW/UO announcement, Arizona finalized the Big12 move. That didn't happen without pre-negotiations. So, you expected UW/UO to stick around with 6 others, add the Aztecs, and have USC/UCLA market football gone, and Arizona basketball gone, which were the assets driving the value of the Pac12? There would have been no leverage to increase the $32 in the future....and by the way, it was not $32M. It was in the high 20's.
The media value in the B1G, and conference shares from the CFP and NCAA Tournament, the exposure from multi-networks... it was a no-brainer decision for UW. Some say UO was a tag along after the B1G dropped Stanford. Maybe, I don't know.
There's nothing more pathetic than a UO fan denying any culpability and pointing the finger at everybody else. The truth is, the deal was in place and Oregon and UW had agreed to sign the AppleTV deal, as was accurately reported the morning of, then FOX came in and sabotaged the deal using UO and UW as decoys. This was always about keeping AppleTV out of a CFB broadcasting platform. The BiG10 didn't want any more members until FOX told them who is what.
I'd have more respect if you just said "We had our reasons for leaving and we killed the conference"
I think the UO was right to leave. I’m happy they left. My own personal opinion is that any entity as poorly run as the PAC12 deserves to die. So good riddance to the PAC12.
Are UO and UW partially responsible for the collapse of the conference? Yes. But who cares? If 3 schools had already left, and UO+UW decided the Apple deal wasn’t worth it, why would they even want to stay? How could anyone argue with or complain about the decision, when moving to the Big10 is so obviously a better move?
You really need to change your name. Sunshine simply does not fit your bitter diatribes.
I wish that a decent linear deal was available, but it was not. The Apple deal was only appealing if no other options were available and when UO and UW we’re faced with the choice of zero linear TV or a Big 10 deal that will likely generate well in excess of 600 million dollars over the next decade, only a complete moron would have gone with the “ disappear into obscurity” Apple deal.
LA Times: Kliavkoff reportedly presented his schools with the details of a potential media rights agreement with Apple on Tuesday. The deal would put the Pac-12 games mostly on streaming and offer minimal linear cable and broadcast options. For the Western schools that have already struggled with exposure over the last decade, that idea apparently did not sit well.
Here’s what changed: Thanks in part to the addition of USC and UCLA, the Big Ten struck a massive, historic TV deal worth $8 billion over seven years. As part of it, the league would have to present each of Fox, NBC and CBS with a desirable national game every week that is worthy of their investment.
Those who follow TV ratings point to 4 million in viewership as the magic number for the networks. Would the Big Ten, with 16 teams, be able to hit that number three times per Saturday, for each network, especially when factoring in bye weeks? The Big Ten eventually would need to add teams again, whether it was from the West or from the ACC or both, to please the networks. The Big Ten saw an opening to strike and did not hesitate.
(At that time, The Times reported Kliakoff's number was in the $20's for each of the 10 schools, then 9 schools after Colorado couldn't stomach further value erosion. Subsequently the $32M number has been used, not sure how it got inflated to $32M)
The 32 mil number was possible if they achieved something like 1.75 mil subscribers. The base number was reportedly 22-23 mil, and then raised to a base of 25.
The Apple deal was dogshit, it underpaid most schools and had no guaranteed linear exposure. Almost everyone in the conference is better off without it.
I'm angry about the death of a great conference. The Pac10/12 is the only conference I've ever cared about in my entire life. I've been a Beaver fan since 1978 and if I have to come here and read what JC writes and talk about it, that's what I'm gonna do.
As you should and you are free to continue to complain about UO and we are free to disagree with you.
“Actually” John….. wonderful article. So many people made bad decisions that destroyed this wonderful Pac12 conference “as we knew it”.
Your English teacher taught you well. Brought back a memory from my high school days of my English teacher in my Junior and Senior years of high school. She was the former wife of Supreme Court justice William O Douglas. She was delightful to listen to and a good teacher. Who would have thought that my class of 14 students in a very small high school in Eastern Oregon would have had her for a teacher. I was lucky.
Actually... thank you.
I don’t have much to say, except that trying to prop up what’s left of the conference seems futile. Very sad indeed. All that history. Just memories soon. The remaining members need to find permanent homes. Sure, we can hope for realignment again; hope for long-term stability instead.
Your logic doesn't hold up. You'd walk away from $255 million, the IP, and give up and do what exactly? That would not be smart.
Thank you, John. The entire point of the legal fight last year was to buy time to reconstruct the conference in some fashion. Why throw in the towel right now? At least use the time granted by the legal victory to find out if it can be done. Money is leverage
What portion of the massive liabilities for the PAC 12 that are coming from the House settlement will be borne by the PAC 2 and what will be the other guys share? How was that negotiated? Seems like 250 million is not a lot for the conference.
Same amount that all schools will be responsible for…$2m/year for five years
It was already agreed that I was all schools, not the conference, is on the hook for that one
They’ve got the money already, John… use it to campaign toward a power conference. I still can’t believe no one would want them. A “group” conference partnership does them no good.
If they give up and go to a G5... the NCAA Tournament revenue reverts to the original schools that earned it. That's $60M out of your pocket. Also, the potential $100M of Rose Bowl money belongs to all 12 not the 2. You don't abandon assets. That's not wise.
A big bank account now? Or a long term investment later?
Actually, the more we peel back this onion, the more we find USC’s and UCLA’s stink on everything. We had a chance to poach Big 12 teams and strengthen our conference and they blocked it. Same with the private equity? If they knew they were leaving years ago, why did they insist on sabotaging every effort to improve the Pac-12?
USC did not want UW and UO in the same conference competing for recruits in So. Cal. Until Colorado and Arizona decided to bail out, the B1G was willing to comply with USC's wishes. USC also felt "victimized" by the Pac's equal shares and wanted to screw over schools they felt were unwilling to vote for unequal shares.
If you can’t beat ‘em, join a new league
As usual John you get us thinking but I am not ready to se the PAC "evaporate like a puddle on the summer sidewalk. " What is true is at this point football power is down to just 2 dominant conferences with the occasional outliers or cinderellas that the CFP might bring. But also true is that no big TV draws are left in the Big12 and the ACC's biggest prizes (FSU, lLemson, & UNC) all want out of the ACC. So for me if we get a rebuilt PAC12 that focuses on all other great West Coast sports (soccer, vball, gymnastics, tennis, golf, softball, baseball, xcountry/track & field, and basketball with conference championships on the West Coast that would keep this 108 year conference alive. It will take some compromises from the Big10 to just take SC/UO/UW/UCLA in football only and some ACC implosions that frees Stanford & Cal to come back then that would allow WSU/PSU to just invite 4 more to reestablish the PAC football conference but it is certainly doable. Most importanlty it make sense and I'd still feel if it happens the PAC12 Conference of Champions would still be alive and not evaporated. My guess a lot of people would celebrate a return like that..
For me. I personally want to wait until the fat lady sings to say it's all over with PAC's demise.
Well put.
Even without football, you cannot have a conference where four schools earn more than $100 million in TV/CFP revenue to be spent supporting all athletic programs, while six others earn half that and two others earn one-fourth of that.
I am 85 and will miss PAC 12 as I grew up in a house without a TV and before MLB, so I was a voracious sports section reader. Now I have a man cave with three screens. And an agile remote and on demand and your podcasts.
Not sure that's true. The draw of those 4 will raise the opportunities for the rest of the league much like Notre Dame does for the ACC right now. The last thing any of the ACC teams want is to lose ND to another conference even though they aren't in their football conference. Part of the PAC deal could be that those 4 teams guarantee to each play some a non-con football game (or even 2) against the 8 Pac football teams like ND does with the 14 ACC teams. That would help them get a much better TV contract much like the ACC got a better TV football contract knowing the conference gets 2.5 home ACC games on ESPN/ABC against ND every year. Plus ND is one of the biggest non-football sport draws on ESPN/ACCN/ESPN+. I'm sure those 4 teams with their brands would help that TV contract as well.
As for revenue there already is a massive gap between the haves and have nots in the same conference. Oregon and Washington were top 2 public athletic programs in the PAC12 and WSU/OSU were the worst 2 with the same media contract. Here's the compare of the 4 NW PAC12 schools: #1 Oregon Total Revenue in 2022: $153,510,555, Total Expenses: $140,565,297, National Ranking: 19th
#2 Washington Total Revenue in 2022: $145,184,864 Total Expenses: $149,458,923
National Ranking: 25th
#9 WSU Total Revenue in 2022: $85,028,825 Total Expenses: $83,691,991 National Ranking: 53rd
#10 OSU Total Revenue in 2022: $83,480,015 Total Expenses: $87,729,627,National Ranking: 54th
Stanford and USC are not included being private and the data is in this USA today article in the address below.
https://duckswire.usatoday.com/lists/where-each-pac-12-school-ranked-among-nations-biggest-revenue-earners-in-2022/
love this detail!
As the PAC 12 wraps up, I want to start focusing forward. It is time to get excited about the future and what that will entail. I want to see Wazzu kick butt against all comers and have a great season in ALL sports. Go Cougs!
BEAVER alumni here!
GO COUGS!!!! We are with you and fellow COUG brethren Ed!! Disappointed about the past but optimistic for what may unfold in the future!!!
Some, not all, University Presidents are from academic backgrounds. They naturally gravitate towards group think that this bunch are immersed in. The lack of common sense among this "club" is displayed frequently in comments and opinions on an array of topics from them. These academic elites have proven to us that they cannot define a woman, or what is "Free speech", as examples. Males being allowed to participate in Women's sports is a jaw dropping example of the naivete. To think these people are savvy enough to fight in their weight class with free market entrepreneurial interests is not realistic. This is especially true when athletics are involved. That is confirmed by the lack of foresight when the Apple Deal was cast aside. The bottom line? These folks have become insignificant in a swirling storm of change in collegiate athletics, supposedly expert in things that they know nothing about. As such, they line up and are led about by aggressive media interests..
I was a fan when it was the PAC 8. Then the pac 10, finally the pac 12… I’m old and don’t care anymore. The good old days no longer matter. Bobby Moore. Tom Graham Ronnie Lee. Just memories … adrift.
Enjoyed the reflections on Prof. Lams. As a high school senior I had A grade papers in English composition. My first two submissions in college were D- and D. Boy, was that an ego deflator. But, had a prof who was very good in explaining why. By end of term, the final semester grade was B+. And, his instruction provided me a lifetime skill set that helped me in my professional business career.
I knew he would make me better... but it was going to be work.
Your writing is a pleasure to read.
The demise of the PAC will be a wonderful business school case study, full of incompetence, indecision, and ego among the key players.
Even more interesting will be how it is presented at OSU and WSU versus at the departing schools, especially UW and UO. UCLA will be even more fun to witness now that “Calimony” is a reality.
I do wonder if how all the teams will pan out in say five years.
SC, UO, Utes, OSU and WSU I bet will weather the storm.
AZ, UW will hang on in mediocrity
CU, Cal, UCLA, ASU, STAN will plummet into obscurity
John, keep trying to get George K. in an interview. You raised a good point about "Limo Larry" (Nice Dave G) and his lack of "full disclosures on the handoff" to George. No restrictions, no editorial approval with George. Some skeletons are sure to surface.
I could be wrong, but I find it hard to believe that remaining staff or Presidents didn't tell him.
As for Scott, he lined up what was a very good contract when first hired and then lined up a $1 Billion media interest sale that would have solved a number of problems. He was also the person who lined up the media contracts so that they were aligned and expired at the same time.
I know I am in the minority, but I never agreed with and still don't agree with the criticism of Scott. He did what he needed to do and USC/UCLA said no.
Lining up a private equity firm is a slippery slope and would have picked apart the Pac-12 just like realignment did.
What he should have done is accepted ESPNs offer to acquire part of the network. That may not have put the conference on par with the SEC but it still would have provided stability and exposure that the conference severely lacked
There are so many what if's regarding the Pac.
Good point, around "....remaining staff or Presidents.....", they share much of the blame. They also waaaaay overpaid for him. Even "Comps" of other Commissioners suggested that. Classic academic poor leadership with never any financial accountability. The schools always get bailed out.