"How so many smart people can make such stupid decisions" is so true. This is the difference between leaders and elite credentialed intellectuals. The latter should run nothing. COVID policies taught me that.
Exactly - In business there are still winners and losers as revenue still matters. Lots of businesses with smart people go out of business because decisions matter. In this situation the Big 10 SEC (Big winners) and Big 12 are the winners. ACC TBD but not looking good.
Cannot wait to watch the incredible match-up of the 10 place finisher in the Big 10 vs 8 place finisher in Big 12 in a meaningless bowl. Good grief
Just observing that there is no way whoever was in charge of the SEC, or the Big 10, or the constituent schools could have done anything whatsoever to lead their conferences to existential crisis. They were blessed from birth for the needs of this day.
I guess I can imagine I would have made better decisions a year ago than a PAC 10 president. But I can't say for sure I would have, and I would have needed to "carry the day" - it doesn't matter if I had been right.
The ACC presidents voting to bring in Stanford and Cal as Independent or full members may be right. But there aren't 12 of them. FSU UNC etc may abandon the conference next year. And chatterers on the internet may say "what idiots the ACC presidents were in 2023."
But, if it was the leavers that blocked it, who are the idiots?
I have better ideas that in waving a magic wand would make college sports better and I think create more money, particularly for the biggest draw schools.
I don't for a second believe I have better ideas or am smarter about what should happen than the leaders of the ACC or PAC.
It's like if we observe a Texas Hold 'Em poker hand with two sixes against one with two tens and then the spread is laid down with another ten. Then we ridicule the player with the sixes for losing (no matter what they do).
Very valid points and I would suggest one of the schools who consistently blocked expansion was USC who left several months later. The interesting thing is you don’t need 100% to move forward but no one wanted to antagonize USC. It certainly appears the commissioner in this situation mislead the CEO group and could have been held accountable earlier.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the ACC as the schools blocking this have not made it a secret they want to leave.
"Hubris" is much too kind a word. It makes the Commissioner, Presidents and ADs sound naive and ignorant. You do not get paid multi-million $$ salaries by school boards / Regents to be naive and ignorant. Where is the accountability? Where are the resignations? You are supposed to be on top of all your university departments, especially sports, which have such high public and alumni visibility. These people are instead, the worst of the worst. I have seen this coming for decades as university Presidents become more and more full of themselves (which, I guess is where we get "hubris"). These people are no smarter than your neighbor. They just think they are. Because they are so cocky, it makes them a lot dumber than your neighbor. Never trust a university executive, EVER. They are really low-life in my book.
As a society, we've lost all sense of accountability. It used to be that if you were handed a task and failed in a horrendous manner, the expectation was that you would resign. Yet, here we are, a week after the PAC was, for all intents and purposes, summarily executed and all of the usual suspects are still around collecting six-seven figure paychecks. How does Kliavkoff look at himself in the mirror every morning and not feel an abject sense of shame? I just can't comprehend it.
Kliavkoff knows he’s a dead man walking, but if he resigns, he gets nothing. He’ll wait around until they fire him, at which point he’ll collect a large severance. That is the way the game is played these days.
Since there is no penalty for failure in the PAC12, as in much of society, such as the military and political leadership, I can honestly say that I can do as well or better than Kliavkoff, since I cannot possibly do worse. I will take his seven figure salary and he can retire.
In education and the academic world, if administration is about to cause a public issue, they promote that person into a different position... Somehow they think this means problem solved.
One wonders what UO presidents in the past, say Dave Frohnmayer, or even Paul Olum, would have handled this. In the 14 years since Frohnmayer left UO's had EIGHT presidents (half were interim, but ARE still "president"). Absolutely absurd.
The university presidents are politicians at heart. Like politicians, they have no clue how to make or hustle a buck, and they will never, ever, point the fingers at themselves.
It very apparent besides maybe one or two of them they simply didn’t care until it was too late. Can you imagine the President of Alabama or OhioState not paying attention ? They would be ran out of town.
Thanks for the REAL take JC. Love this about you on this platform. No need to stir up controversy, just give us the facts, your insight, and opinion...with great research!
Thanks. It's a complicated story. One of my big questions was how in the world so many presidents all seemed to be saying "everything is great" and "we're together" when we now know it was not.
Allowing such a blackbox negotiation for so long would trigger shareholder lawsuits if it happened in a public company. They were willfully misleading their stakeholders by suggesting they had information they did not.
I knew something was up when it came out right before the PAC-12 media days that they were on the verge of a major contract...If they were on the verge, it would have been signed by that point.
I appreciate this post, it’s a good inside look at what happened. We needed more of it in real time.
Let’s be honest about Canzano, he has spewed the Pac-12 propaganda being given to him for the last year. In the face of really good reporters reporting the opposite. He even called out some reporters as falling for Big 12/Endeavor propaganda. Turns out he was completely wrong on this story all the way through it. For me it’s a shame he threw in with the Pac-12 propaganda and threw his credibility away at the same time.
I originally subscribed to support an independent endeavor, and respected the risk he took leaving The Oregonian. Also respected some good reporting he did at that paper. I have now unsubscribed, and won’t be reading anymore once the subscription runs out.
It was a shame that he put his journalistic credibility aside to join a side in this. And it turned out to be the wrong side. In my mind he essentially became Fox News, or MSNBC.
Not sure why, but maybe it’s knowing where his audience comes from and feeding them information he believes will continue to drive subscriptions? That’s speculation, but not sure what other reason he would have had to join a “team” in this story.
I view things differently. Canzano is based in a PAC12 city. He has every right to be biased in favor of the PAC12. He should never present false information. But if AD at Oregon State or President at Washington State is telling John something (that later turns out to be a mirage) that was not Canzano's fault.
You've mentioned the BIG12 propaganda. The #1 megaphone for that stream of propaganda was Dennis Dodd. Dennis is a national college football reporter for CBS. As a national reporter he should not be taking sides in the story that he is reporting. Yet Dodd acted at Yormark's puppet throughout the past year -- presenting the BIG12 as thriving (even stupid ideas like playing a football game in Mexico), stoking any possible rumor of Colorado or Arizona leaving the PAC12, dismissing the idea of a streaming approach with Apple or Amazon, etc.
Dodd inserted himself into the story. Canzano did not do that.
We will agree to disagree. Canzano inserted himself into the story, became a mouthpiece for the Pac-12, and refused to listen to other sources reporting information that completely contradicted the information he was getting. I was following both sides all along, and was very curious to see who was correct. It's evident now.
I don't have any problem with John reporting what Pac-12 insiders were telling him. The problem I have is his refusal to go to other sources that were clearly out there telling a completely different story. You print both and let the reader decide, if you are a real reporter. At least, that is what I was taught in journalism school.
Where it gets a little tricky is for an opinion guy, which John was at the Oregonian. And maybe he fancies himself as that today. But if that's the case, he's completely misrepresented himself by telling us over and over that if you read him you get real, sourced reporting. We didn't.
You seem to be placing a lot of importance on the concept of "Who was correct". I think you go off-track in doing so.
The implosion that occurred last week came very (very) close to not happening. FOX threw in additional funds that caused Oregon and Washington to jump ship. Had FOX not provided the extra last-minute money -- all presidents are saying that the 9 schools would have stayed together in the PAC12. That would have made John "correct". The fact that FOX swayed things at the end does not mean that John's earlier reporting was bad/wrong.
In the final eventful week John was reporting that Oregon was the key. And he was right. Perhaps we can both agree on this point.
Colorado jumping killed the linear deal that accompanied the streaming deal, correct?
So the genius reporter would have called that sequence - "Colorado won't wait until the 7/31 meeting, they'll jump quicker." And then called "Oregon and Washington will be in until a bailout an hour before the vote to accept "
I did not see a soul predict either. I could go back through the comments here to see otherwise. And maybe it happened - anyone can predict anything. Sometimes that will be right. But predicting something on social media is not close to being a decision maker in the room. It's worthless, it's guessing, it's betting that one out of four outcomes will happen and being right without any inside influence or knowledge.
I know very clearly what should have happened two-five-twenty years ago to have created a much better outcome for college football and the big names and the small names. I don't think that hindsight makes me a genius.
Feeding the audience information to further his subscriptions? IMHO, you’re wrong. John got screwed by people he spoke with that were not being honest with him. I do not agree that he “joined a side”, and I’m fairly certain the majority of the readers on this platform would disagree with you as well.
I mean, it's possible that that his sources reported the truth as they believed it at the time..... It's not a journalist's role to intervene and tell sources to do their job differently.
Plenty of other folks reported that Endeavor was conducting information ops not linked to any real activity. Just because it became real later doesn't mean they weren't faking it to begin with.
Except that $30M was ESPN's opening number. They knew that and so should the PAC-12 have known that. $50M from the PAC-12 just says that they aren't in the negotiation. It always seemed like the school presidents wanted the arms length approach that they got. They didn't want to get their hands dirty, which shows that they refused to see the business they were actually in when it comes to sports, and especially football.
It’s crazy that they passed up the ESPN deal. Should have countered of course, but at like a $35 million range and settled for $32 million and went on with a stable life. Some really terrible leadership from not only GK but also the leaders of the universities.
I hate that my Beavs, plus the Cougs are being left behind. I also don’t blame the Ducks and Huskies for taking the Big 10 deal. Having the possibility of zero linear broadcast options and only Apple is kind of ridiculous at this point in time. Having streaming as the secondary part of the deal would have made much more sense, but GK, his buddy, and the university leaders blew that chance.
Still hope the Beavs and Cougs can pull off a miracle and land with the Big 12 or form a best of the MWC and AAC conference.
I'm not sure it was this simple. It's possible ESPN wasn't willing to budge, and had promised B12 any deal with P12 would make sure they were behind B12's.
Which.... wgaf, they should have still done the deal, but GK had his bosses in a corner to a degree that he wasn't forced to take that hit to his ego and reputation.
Fine analysis, but please don't try to convince us that Larry Scott might've prevented this. That's as absurd as the promises Kliavkoff was making. Scott, you'll recall, was a former women's tennis executive who at the time of his hiring admitted he hadn't seen a college football game in 11 years. He created the disastrous Pac-12 Network without a partner (all the other conferences have partnered with ESPN or Fox), got into a pissing match with Direct TV, and insisted on a structure with seven different costly feeds. Instead of delivering the revenues he had promised to member schools, his network became an albatross.
His arrogance was another problem. Scott, who never met a microphone he didn't like, spent lavishly on conference offices in downtown San Francisco, stayed in a $7,500 hotel suite in Las Vegas during the conference basketball tournament, and took a $2 million bonus shortly before laying off or furloughing half the conference staff in 2020.
Kliavkoff was clearly in over his head from day one. Over the last year he has made a series of ludicrous comments and false promises that left a lot of people scratching their heads. Two weeks ago, at the Conference's media day, Kliavkoff actually insisted that "the longer we wait for the media deal, the better our options get." Other than that, Mrs.Lincoln, how'd you like the play?
The exec search industry has become so insular and self-serving, and accumulated so much influence that leaders on the hiring side are afraid to ask hard questions or hold their feet to the fire. It also does a splendid job of letting CEOs (and directors / trustees) blame someone else when a hire like this goes sideway rather than re-examine their own governance and processes.
In hindsight sending GK to negotiate the media deal was like sending an Eagle Scout into a biker bar. He was the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The P12 fate was sealed the moment they alienated their bell cow. SC gave the P12 legitimacy and branding for decades. Nobody heard or cared about Oregon or Oregon St or Arizona prior to maybe the early 2000s. SC bowl earnings helped subsidize 2 win Oregon st teams for years. When the ncaa screwed SC with sanctions the other members didn’t rally to help the program in their own conference they had benefited being aligned to for years. Some of them (cough cough Oregon looking at you) used it to negative recruit. I guess they thought kids wouldn’t talk about what they were told on recruiting visits at other schools that ended up at SC. SC heard and never forgot. They asked for a fair revenue share and were rebuffed. The lunacy of USC sharing equal revenue with WSU and Colorado is mindboggling. So of course when they were offered a deal that was 60% more than they made in an ineptly run P12 to go to a better run, bigger brand conference, they took it. And all the judgement here about “conference killers” or righteous indignation over “unfair travel for students” when it was UCLA and SC was immediately forgotten when Oregon and UW bolted for HALF of what SC did. Half, dude. Imagine how quick they’d have run for a full share.
Point being: you don’t alienate the only blue blood, massive brand in your conference in football (SC) and it’s equal in basketball (UCLA) in the biggest media market in the country unless you are incredibly short sighted and frankly, stupid. If there were ANY doubt about the true value and branding of the rest of the P12 when the LA schools left that should have been crystal clear when every network offered them Jack sh## and only Apple have them an embarrassment of an offer. Cold, hard, objective facts where money talks. Nationally: nobody cared anymore. And these idiots thought they didn’t need the LA schools to matter. SMH. Hubris? More like provencial delusion. End of the day I feel bad for Oregon St, I really do. But the rest of the conference? No.
USC and UCLA leaving was a near mortal wound. But not necessarily truly mortal.
But USC and UCLA knew it was at least near mortal. That they made a choice was their choice. They own it that they could not have what they wanted in the PAC 12.
If FSU and Clemson leave the ACC, that would be damaging. If UNC and UVA leave, that is near mortal. If they want to do that, fine. But it will be their dagger and their fingerprints.
I hear what you’re saying, but it isn’t so clear cut. Carol Folt told her fellow presidents USC was not looking elsewhere. Not, “We’ll stay but only if we get a higher share.” I’ve yet to see where SC made this a topic of their frustration in the weeks leading up to their departure. They just bolted out of the blue. If it was such a big deal to them, and knowing the TV negotiation was coming up, why weren’t they pounding the table saying, “We want a larger share, or else we’re leaving for greener pastures!” They just sat there stewing instead of communicating. This is not trustworthy, adult behavior.
I've been saying the same thing. SC and Folt personally blocked adding Big 12 teams. Then they have routinely stated "nobody ASKED us if we were happy." Such elitists thinking. Did they ever mention to anyone they weren't happy and would need more to stay? Nope. So unprofessional and self centered. I know the Pac was strong with them, but it's that kind of conceit that led everyone to despise them.
LOL...a "bell cow" with no bell, coming off a three loss season with more of the same this season. I'm looking forward to the days we're tOSU, UM, and PSU complain about having to subsidize 4-6 wins USC/UCLA teams. By the way, who's starting at QB next year for USC? Miller Moss? I'm sure that he'll lead you to the promised land in the B1G.
I agree with much of what you are saying SCFORTHEWIN. But here's my criticism of USC... All reports (from LA Times and others) consistently said that USC ambushed the PAC12. ("Ambush" is my choice of words.) If USC was unhappy they should have said to the PAC12 -- "We are unhappy and we are leaving unless our concerns can be addressed". USC did not do that. In fact it was reported that Folt assured George K things were fine and then USC announced that it was leaving. Folt was dishonest. There is no excuse for that.
I understand that football revenue supports all of the rest of college sports. That said, I can't imagine baseball, basketball, wrestling and all the rest of the teams traveling all over the country. Seems this would just create a bigger operating loss for those sports than already is the case. However, I imagine that it wouldn't work for the PAC 12 to continue with all of the sports for each team except for football. Or could it? Football would simply continue to subsidize the other sports as it always has. Or, is there so sort of an NCAA rule that all of the schools' sports have to be in the same conference?
Seems like the powers that be should start planning the splint off so it could go into effect in 2024. Why make the other sports kill themselves with travel for now good reason?
It’s the right thing to do, but good luck getting everybody to agree which 64 teams are in which “conference” and play for which championship. TV will drive that. And good luck getting schools that are now getting revenues of 2-3x that of others schools in the group of 64 agreeing to share revenue equally.
What’s needed is a commissioner of football. To do that, you have to get university presidents to agree to that, and to essentially dissolve the current conference setups and TV contracts. Just can’t imagine a world where that happens. We’re running in the exact opposite direction of that right now.
commissioners, AD's, Presidents/Chancellors all want to place blame on one another, but none are stepping up taking responsibility. The old saying "be careful what you wish for". After the Scott fiasco, I thought anyone would be an improvement over him but that does not appear to be the case. I think anyone of your faithful readers who have owned or managed a business at some point in their careers could have done a better job than this group. Your article stating that the PAC 12 board came back with a counter nearly double from the original offer says it all. Don't demand a number tell them that ESPN needs to better and "give it your best shot". I have said this before, as I am an UO alum: I am beyond angry that UO, UW and UCLA can actually sell out a family member (OSU, WSU and UC Berkley) for the almighty dollar. At least the AZ schools stood together.
I’m a Duck very sad to see the conference blow up. But I rejoice that Oregon is joining a conference not hampered by incompetent overseers.
Two points: the conference rejected ESPN’s $30M per school and sought $50M. Question: based on what? Did they have advisors other than GK and his law school buddy? Bet the answer is no. They just kept it inside their circle because by golly, they are really smart people!
Second, you report JC that the hiring of said law school pal raised eyebrows around the country. But it didn’t among the Pac 12 overseers. This is the same head-in-sand approach that gave us Larry Scott for all those years.
Good riddance Pac 12 boobs. You sip tea on the veranda while the house burns down.
Drex... you do realize that BIG TEN leadership is also a mess, right? Warren negotiated 90% of an agreement, claimed "success" and then jumped ship to take a job with the Chicago Bears. The new commissioner is dealing with all of the loose ends Warren behind. (It is coming out that ADs and Presidents at various schools were unaware of the commitments that Warren made.)
The BIG TEN leadership is not more competent. They are just an incompetent.
The difference is the that BIG TEN has FOX's money and the PAC12 doesn't.
The ironic thing is there’s still a window out. I’m biased, but I always thought SDSU was undervalued. Why? The proximity to LA and OC and the KEEPING of eyeballs to Pac 12 games. And the So. Cal. Recruiting footprint for all members. There are/were many P12 fans in So. Cal. And there are many SDSU alums in the area. I expect JD Wicker and Co. mentioned as much.
Bob, just woke up to the reality of the MWC app for streaming. Could have been watching both my "alma maters", school UofHawaii & service USAF, last season. Looking forward to seeing their games and SDSU this coming season.
After reading the story in The Athletic this morning and now John's account (which sync up to each other) I feel that we finally have the whole story. It still really stinks, but it's more obvious now that Kliavkoff clearly bungled the whole thing. AND, if he's the one trying to keep the PAC alive (which I'd prefer) I'm not holding my breath.
I'm a bit surprised--read STUNNED!--by the conference's (Commissioner's?) response to the ESPN $30 mill offer. The $50M was insulting, like they wanted ESPN to walk, rather than actually negotiate. That was suicidal. You come back at $40M, maybe $37.5M and maybe negotiate closer to $34-35M. We'd have a Pac-10 today (maybe 12 again with SDSU and SMU). This was beyond idiotic.
“How so many smart people can make such stupid decisions.”
What if they're not that smart? USC and UCLA had the admissions scandal. Stanford's president is resigning because he made up a bunch of his research. Oregon State hired F King Alexander without doing ANY vetting. That's a quarter of your conference! They're not that smart. And when it came time to make decisions, none of them had any idea how. I mean, how in God's name did any of them believe they were getting low-balled at $30M? Because they're not that smart.
What the presidents have going for them is for the most part no one ever peeks behind the curtain. Everyone just assumes that because they've got all those letters after their name that they must know some secret. They don't.
On that point, four major west coast universities are about to learn a painful lesson in how much it costs to make all that B1G money all because no one ever stopped to ask. Ask Rutgers how it's gone for them.
Being smart is a whole different thing than being intelligent. We are surrounded by very stupid people who would qualify as being intelligent, but can’t grab their behind with both hands if someone is holding it for them. They are commonly called bureaucrats.
It’s actually quite amazing that with all the high powered successful business alums and faculty these schools have, that the relatively inexperienced presidents and ADs are the ones in the middle of a major strategic business decision.
Smarts is only one component of it (and not everyone is equally smart.) There’s also training and experience. You might be as smart as the Boeing engineer down the street, but I don’t want you designing the airplane I’m riding on unless you have the proper education and you’ve been doing it for awhile.
Being a soothsayer and being able to make decisions in hindsight is way more valuable than being intelligent.
Also way easier to watch a poker hand being played than playing it with your competitors and dealt cards blind.
And if you have a relatively weak hand then your Ace and Queen up and leave your hand, it is very easy to observe that the player should have done X vs Y.
Amen to this. It mimicks the whole concept of college football being a wide open playoff that anyone can win. It will only reward 12-15 Southern Alliance programs and that has been proven as fact through all of the difference controversies throughout the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, BCS and the pseudo so called playoff.
"How so many smart people can make such stupid decisions" is so true. This is the difference between leaders and elite credentialed intellectuals. The latter should run nothing. COVID policies taught me that.
Truth.
This is a great point. So often academia vastly over values credentials and ignores leadership ability.
Exactly - In business there are still winners and losers as revenue still matters. Lots of businesses with smart people go out of business because decisions matter. In this situation the Big 10 SEC (Big winners) and Big 12 are the winners. ACC TBD but not looking good.
Cannot wait to watch the incredible match-up of the 10 place finisher in the Big 10 vs 8 place finisher in Big 12 in a meaningless bowl. Good grief
Just observing that there is no way whoever was in charge of the SEC, or the Big 10, or the constituent schools could have done anything whatsoever to lead their conferences to existential crisis. They were blessed from birth for the needs of this day.
I guess I can imagine I would have made better decisions a year ago than a PAC 10 president. But I can't say for sure I would have, and I would have needed to "carry the day" - it doesn't matter if I had been right.
The ACC presidents voting to bring in Stanford and Cal as Independent or full members may be right. But there aren't 12 of them. FSU UNC etc may abandon the conference next year. And chatterers on the internet may say "what idiots the ACC presidents were in 2023."
But, if it was the leavers that blocked it, who are the idiots?
I have better ideas that in waving a magic wand would make college sports better and I think create more money, particularly for the biggest draw schools.
I don't for a second believe I have better ideas or am smarter about what should happen than the leaders of the ACC or PAC.
It's like if we observe a Texas Hold 'Em poker hand with two sixes against one with two tens and then the spread is laid down with another ten. Then we ridicule the player with the sixes for losing (no matter what they do).
Very valid points and I would suggest one of the schools who consistently blocked expansion was USC who left several months later. The interesting thing is you don’t need 100% to move forward but no one wanted to antagonize USC. It certainly appears the commissioner in this situation mislead the CEO group and could have been held accountable earlier.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the ACC as the schools blocking this have not made it a secret they want to leave.
Great take
"Hubris" is much too kind a word. It makes the Commissioner, Presidents and ADs sound naive and ignorant. You do not get paid multi-million $$ salaries by school boards / Regents to be naive and ignorant. Where is the accountability? Where are the resignations? You are supposed to be on top of all your university departments, especially sports, which have such high public and alumni visibility. These people are instead, the worst of the worst. I have seen this coming for decades as university Presidents become more and more full of themselves (which, I guess is where we get "hubris"). These people are no smarter than your neighbor. They just think they are. Because they are so cocky, it makes them a lot dumber than your neighbor. Never trust a university executive, EVER. They are really low-life in my book.
As a society, we've lost all sense of accountability. It used to be that if you were handed a task and failed in a horrendous manner, the expectation was that you would resign. Yet, here we are, a week after the PAC was, for all intents and purposes, summarily executed and all of the usual suspects are still around collecting six-seven figure paychecks. How does Kliavkoff look at himself in the mirror every morning and not feel an abject sense of shame? I just can't comprehend it.
Kliavkoff knows he’s a dead man walking, but if he resigns, he gets nothing. He’ll wait around until they fire him, at which point he’ll collect a large severance. That is the way the game is played these days.
Since there is no penalty for failure in the PAC12, as in much of society, such as the military and political leadership, I can honestly say that I can do as well or better than Kliavkoff, since I cannot possibly do worse. I will take his seven figure salary and he can retire.
Maybe he does. But a lot of people in positions like this also have a big dose of rationalization to offset.
In education and the academic world, if administration is about to cause a public issue, they promote that person into a different position... Somehow they think this means problem solved.
Haha, sounds like the Catholic Church too !
One wonders what UO presidents in the past, say Dave Frohnmayer, or even Paul Olum, would have handled this. In the 14 years since Frohnmayer left UO's had EIGHT presidents (half were interim, but ARE still "president"). Absolutely absurd.
The university presidents are politicians at heart. Like politicians, they have no clue how to make or hustle a buck, and they will never, ever, point the fingers at themselves.
Those same positions in the other conferences seem to have a clue. Why are Pac 8/10/12/10/9/4 presidents so clueless compared to their peers?
It very apparent besides maybe one or two of them they simply didn’t care until it was too late. Can you imagine the President of Alabama or OhioState not paying attention ? They would be ran out of town.
He could commit hari kari.
Or any of the rest of you could too, if you substituted for Kliakoff and weren't bigger geniuses.
Thanks for the REAL take JC. Love this about you on this platform. No need to stir up controversy, just give us the facts, your insight, and opinion...with great research!
Thanks. It's a complicated story. One of my big questions was how in the world so many presidents all seemed to be saying "everything is great" and "we're together" when we now know it was not.
Allowing such a blackbox negotiation for so long would trigger shareholder lawsuits if it happened in a public company. They were willfully misleading their stakeholders by suggesting they had information they did not.
I knew something was up when it came out right before the PAC-12 media days that they were on the verge of a major contract...If they were on the verge, it would have been signed by that point.
Nobody who runs stuff ever wants to be quoted ae saying: "I don't know."
Pride and Ego
I appreciate this post, it’s a good inside look at what happened. We needed more of it in real time.
Let’s be honest about Canzano, he has spewed the Pac-12 propaganda being given to him for the last year. In the face of really good reporters reporting the opposite. He even called out some reporters as falling for Big 12/Endeavor propaganda. Turns out he was completely wrong on this story all the way through it. For me it’s a shame he threw in with the Pac-12 propaganda and threw his credibility away at the same time.
I originally subscribed to support an independent endeavor, and respected the risk he took leaving The Oregonian. Also respected some good reporting he did at that paper. I have now unsubscribed, and won’t be reading anymore once the subscription runs out.
It was a shame that he put his journalistic credibility aside to join a side in this. And it turned out to be the wrong side. In my mind he essentially became Fox News, or MSNBC.
Not sure why, but maybe it’s knowing where his audience comes from and feeding them information he believes will continue to drive subscriptions? That’s speculation, but not sure what other reason he would have had to join a “team” in this story.
I view things differently. Canzano is based in a PAC12 city. He has every right to be biased in favor of the PAC12. He should never present false information. But if AD at Oregon State or President at Washington State is telling John something (that later turns out to be a mirage) that was not Canzano's fault.
You've mentioned the BIG12 propaganda. The #1 megaphone for that stream of propaganda was Dennis Dodd. Dennis is a national college football reporter for CBS. As a national reporter he should not be taking sides in the story that he is reporting. Yet Dodd acted at Yormark's puppet throughout the past year -- presenting the BIG12 as thriving (even stupid ideas like playing a football game in Mexico), stoking any possible rumor of Colorado or Arizona leaving the PAC12, dismissing the idea of a streaming approach with Apple or Amazon, etc.
Dodd inserted himself into the story. Canzano did not do that.
We will agree to disagree. Canzano inserted himself into the story, became a mouthpiece for the Pac-12, and refused to listen to other sources reporting information that completely contradicted the information he was getting. I was following both sides all along, and was very curious to see who was correct. It's evident now.
I don't have any problem with John reporting what Pac-12 insiders were telling him. The problem I have is his refusal to go to other sources that were clearly out there telling a completely different story. You print both and let the reader decide, if you are a real reporter. At least, that is what I was taught in journalism school.
Where it gets a little tricky is for an opinion guy, which John was at the Oregonian. And maybe he fancies himself as that today. But if that's the case, he's completely misrepresented himself by telling us over and over that if you read him you get real, sourced reporting. We didn't.
You seem to be placing a lot of importance on the concept of "Who was correct". I think you go off-track in doing so.
The implosion that occurred last week came very (very) close to not happening. FOX threw in additional funds that caused Oregon and Washington to jump ship. Had FOX not provided the extra last-minute money -- all presidents are saying that the 9 schools would have stayed together in the PAC12. That would have made John "correct". The fact that FOX swayed things at the end does not mean that John's earlier reporting was bad/wrong.
In the final eventful week John was reporting that Oregon was the key. And he was right. Perhaps we can both agree on this point.
Colorado jumping killed the linear deal that accompanied the streaming deal, correct?
So the genius reporter would have called that sequence - "Colorado won't wait until the 7/31 meeting, they'll jump quicker." And then called "Oregon and Washington will be in until a bailout an hour before the vote to accept "
I did not see a soul predict either. I could go back through the comments here to see otherwise. And maybe it happened - anyone can predict anything. Sometimes that will be right. But predicting something on social media is not close to being a decision maker in the room. It's worthless, it's guessing, it's betting that one out of four outcomes will happen and being right without any inside influence or knowledge.
I know very clearly what should have happened two-five-twenty years ago to have created a much better outcome for college football and the big names and the small names. I don't think that hindsight makes me a genius.
Feeding the audience information to further his subscriptions? IMHO, you’re wrong. John got screwed by people he spoke with that were not being honest with him. I do not agree that he “joined a side”, and I’m fairly certain the majority of the readers on this platform would disagree with you as well.
I mean, it's possible that that his sources reported the truth as they believed it at the time..... It's not a journalist's role to intervene and tell sources to do their job differently.
Plenty of other folks reported that Endeavor was conducting information ops not linked to any real activity. Just because it became real later doesn't mean they weren't faking it to begin with.
Yornark is a snake oil salesman. Maybe you like that stuff. I don't.
So ESPN offered $30M per school AFTER LA schools left. In the exhausting year of uncertainty, the $30M figure always was the benchmark.
Hubris? Idiocy? Who actually thought they could get $50M, or a dime more than 30?
The numbers are the numbers. The leaders of the Pac 12 obviously can’t read a spreadsheet.
A collection of the greatest academics in the world obviously doesn’t require basic common sense or even basic business savvy.
Except that $30M was ESPN's opening number. They knew that and so should the PAC-12 have known that. $50M from the PAC-12 just says that they aren't in the negotiation. It always seemed like the school presidents wanted the arms length approach that they got. They didn't want to get their hands dirty, which shows that they refused to see the business they were actually in when it comes to sports, and especially football.
It’s crazy that they passed up the ESPN deal. Should have countered of course, but at like a $35 million range and settled for $32 million and went on with a stable life. Some really terrible leadership from not only GK but also the leaders of the universities.
I hate that my Beavs, plus the Cougs are being left behind. I also don’t blame the Ducks and Huskies for taking the Big 10 deal. Having the possibility of zero linear broadcast options and only Apple is kind of ridiculous at this point in time. Having streaming as the secondary part of the deal would have made much more sense, but GK, his buddy, and the university leaders blew that chance.
Still hope the Beavs and Cougs can pull off a miracle and land with the Big 12 or form a best of the MWC and AAC conference.
I'm not sure it was this simple. It's possible ESPN wasn't willing to budge, and had promised B12 any deal with P12 would make sure they were behind B12's.
Which.... wgaf, they should have still done the deal, but GK had his bosses in a corner to a degree that he wasn't forced to take that hit to his ego and reputation.
Fine analysis, but please don't try to convince us that Larry Scott might've prevented this. That's as absurd as the promises Kliavkoff was making. Scott, you'll recall, was a former women's tennis executive who at the time of his hiring admitted he hadn't seen a college football game in 11 years. He created the disastrous Pac-12 Network without a partner (all the other conferences have partnered with ESPN or Fox), got into a pissing match with Direct TV, and insisted on a structure with seven different costly feeds. Instead of delivering the revenues he had promised to member schools, his network became an albatross.
His arrogance was another problem. Scott, who never met a microphone he didn't like, spent lavishly on conference offices in downtown San Francisco, stayed in a $7,500 hotel suite in Las Vegas during the conference basketball tournament, and took a $2 million bonus shortly before laying off or furloughing half the conference staff in 2020.
Kliavkoff was clearly in over his head from day one. Over the last year he has made a series of ludicrous comments and false promises that left a lot of people scratching their heads. Two weeks ago, at the Conference's media day, Kliavkoff actually insisted that "the longer we wait for the media deal, the better our options get." Other than that, Mrs.Lincoln, how'd you like the play?
The exec search industry has become so insular and self-serving, and accumulated so much influence that leaders on the hiring side are afraid to ask hard questions or hold their feet to the fire. It also does a splendid job of letting CEOs (and directors / trustees) blame someone else when a hire like this goes sideway rather than re-examine their own governance and processes.
All of your take was true. JC posed the question because the ex Commissioner never lossed the Conference.
That’s only because they pushed him out the door before he could deliver the fatal blows.
So you believe he would
have naively trusted Carol Folt?
If so….on what basis.
JC painted him as a very self preserving Commissioner.
No, naivete was Kliavkoff's specialty. But I certainly wouldn't have trusted Scott to negotiate a TV package given his history.
In hindsight sending GK to negotiate the media deal was like sending an Eagle Scout into a biker bar. He was the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
He should have hired an experienced firm.
The P12 fate was sealed the moment they alienated their bell cow. SC gave the P12 legitimacy and branding for decades. Nobody heard or cared about Oregon or Oregon St or Arizona prior to maybe the early 2000s. SC bowl earnings helped subsidize 2 win Oregon st teams for years. When the ncaa screwed SC with sanctions the other members didn’t rally to help the program in their own conference they had benefited being aligned to for years. Some of them (cough cough Oregon looking at you) used it to negative recruit. I guess they thought kids wouldn’t talk about what they were told on recruiting visits at other schools that ended up at SC. SC heard and never forgot. They asked for a fair revenue share and were rebuffed. The lunacy of USC sharing equal revenue with WSU and Colorado is mindboggling. So of course when they were offered a deal that was 60% more than they made in an ineptly run P12 to go to a better run, bigger brand conference, they took it. And all the judgement here about “conference killers” or righteous indignation over “unfair travel for students” when it was UCLA and SC was immediately forgotten when Oregon and UW bolted for HALF of what SC did. Half, dude. Imagine how quick they’d have run for a full share.
Point being: you don’t alienate the only blue blood, massive brand in your conference in football (SC) and it’s equal in basketball (UCLA) in the biggest media market in the country unless you are incredibly short sighted and frankly, stupid. If there were ANY doubt about the true value and branding of the rest of the P12 when the LA schools left that should have been crystal clear when every network offered them Jack sh## and only Apple have them an embarrassment of an offer. Cold, hard, objective facts where money talks. Nationally: nobody cared anymore. And these idiots thought they didn’t need the LA schools to matter. SMH. Hubris? More like provencial delusion. End of the day I feel bad for Oregon St, I really do. But the rest of the conference? No.
The loss of USC was THE formative moment.
Easy to see that, now. How were we so naive to think it wasn't a death blow?
USC and UCLA leaving was a near mortal wound. But not necessarily truly mortal.
But USC and UCLA knew it was at least near mortal. That they made a choice was their choice. They own it that they could not have what they wanted in the PAC 12.
If FSU and Clemson leave the ACC, that would be damaging. If UNC and UVA leave, that is near mortal. If they want to do that, fine. But it will be their dagger and their fingerprints.
I hear what you’re saying, but it isn’t so clear cut. Carol Folt told her fellow presidents USC was not looking elsewhere. Not, “We’ll stay but only if we get a higher share.” I’ve yet to see where SC made this a topic of their frustration in the weeks leading up to their departure. They just bolted out of the blue. If it was such a big deal to them, and knowing the TV negotiation was coming up, why weren’t they pounding the table saying, “We want a larger share, or else we’re leaving for greener pastures!” They just sat there stewing instead of communicating. This is not trustworthy, adult behavior.
I've been saying the same thing. SC and Folt personally blocked adding Big 12 teams. Then they have routinely stated "nobody ASKED us if we were happy." Such elitists thinking. Did they ever mention to anyone they weren't happy and would need more to stay? Nope. So unprofessional and self centered. I know the Pac was strong with them, but it's that kind of conceit that led everyone to despise them.
I applaud you lecturing the SC apologist with actual facts about the back stabbing Akron native’s behavior.
Yup
LOL...a "bell cow" with no bell, coming off a three loss season with more of the same this season. I'm looking forward to the days we're tOSU, UM, and PSU complain about having to subsidize 4-6 wins USC/UCLA teams. By the way, who's starting at QB next year for USC? Miller Moss? I'm sure that he'll lead you to the promised land in the B1G.
I agree with much of what you are saying SCFORTHEWIN. But here's my criticism of USC... All reports (from LA Times and others) consistently said that USC ambushed the PAC12. ("Ambush" is my choice of words.) If USC was unhappy they should have said to the PAC12 -- "We are unhappy and we are leaving unless our concerns can be addressed". USC did not do that. In fact it was reported that Folt assured George K things were fine and then USC announced that it was leaving. Folt was dishonest. There is no excuse for that.
Screw USC
Exactly the attitude that led to the demise of the Pac, Bob.
Only because they were able to take UCLA with them.
I’m wondering what the pac members were supposed to do when SC was sanctioned?
I understand that football revenue supports all of the rest of college sports. That said, I can't imagine baseball, basketball, wrestling and all the rest of the teams traveling all over the country. Seems this would just create a bigger operating loss for those sports than already is the case. However, I imagine that it wouldn't work for the PAC 12 to continue with all of the sports for each team except for football. Or could it? Football would simply continue to subsidize the other sports as it always has. Or, is there so sort of an NCAA rule that all of the schools' sports have to be in the same conference?
I think you'll see a course correction eventually. Football will splinter off.
Seems like the powers that be should start planning the splint off so it could go into effect in 2024. Why make the other sports kill themselves with travel for now good reason?
Chip Kelly has the answer. Two 64-team tiered conferences. Universities play regional conferences for all other sports. Voila.
It’s the right thing to do, but good luck getting everybody to agree which 64 teams are in which “conference” and play for which championship. TV will drive that. And good luck getting schools that are now getting revenues of 2-3x that of others schools in the group of 64 agreeing to share revenue equally.
What’s needed is a commissioner of football. To do that, you have to get university presidents to agree to that, and to essentially dissolve the current conference setups and TV contracts. Just can’t imagine a world where that happens. We’re running in the exact opposite direction of that right now.
I could support that.
Sorry about the typo-should have read "some sort of"....
commissioners, AD's, Presidents/Chancellors all want to place blame on one another, but none are stepping up taking responsibility. The old saying "be careful what you wish for". After the Scott fiasco, I thought anyone would be an improvement over him but that does not appear to be the case. I think anyone of your faithful readers who have owned or managed a business at some point in their careers could have done a better job than this group. Your article stating that the PAC 12 board came back with a counter nearly double from the original offer says it all. Don't demand a number tell them that ESPN needs to better and "give it your best shot". I have said this before, as I am an UO alum: I am beyond angry that UO, UW and UCLA can actually sell out a family member (OSU, WSU and UC Berkley) for the almighty dollar. At least the AZ schools stood together.
I’m a Duck very sad to see the conference blow up. But I rejoice that Oregon is joining a conference not hampered by incompetent overseers.
Two points: the conference rejected ESPN’s $30M per school and sought $50M. Question: based on what? Did they have advisors other than GK and his law school buddy? Bet the answer is no. They just kept it inside their circle because by golly, they are really smart people!
Second, you report JC that the hiring of said law school pal raised eyebrows around the country. But it didn’t among the Pac 12 overseers. This is the same head-in-sand approach that gave us Larry Scott for all those years.
Good riddance Pac 12 boobs. You sip tea on the veranda while the house burns down.
Drex... you do realize that BIG TEN leadership is also a mess, right? Warren negotiated 90% of an agreement, claimed "success" and then jumped ship to take a job with the Chicago Bears. The new commissioner is dealing with all of the loose ends Warren behind. (It is coming out that ADs and Presidents at various schools were unaware of the commitments that Warren made.)
The BIG TEN leadership is not more competent. They are just an incompetent.
The difference is the that BIG TEN has FOX's money and the PAC12 doesn't.
Exactly...and is why I don't buy it...Inside job.
The ironic thing is there’s still a window out. I’m biased, but I always thought SDSU was undervalued. Why? The proximity to LA and OC and the KEEPING of eyeballs to Pac 12 games. And the So. Cal. Recruiting footprint for all members. There are/were many P12 fans in So. Cal. And there are many SDSU alums in the area. I expect JD Wicker and Co. mentioned as much.
Bob, just woke up to the reality of the MWC app for streaming. Could have been watching both my "alma maters", school UofHawaii & service USAF, last season. Looking forward to seeing their games and SDSU this coming season.
After reading the story in The Athletic this morning and now John's account (which sync up to each other) I feel that we finally have the whole story. It still really stinks, but it's more obvious now that Kliavkoff clearly bungled the whole thing. AND, if he's the one trying to keep the PAC alive (which I'd prefer) I'm not holding my breath.
I just read The Athletic piece. They did a nice job on the other side of this. Dovetails nicely.
I read it, too. The Athletic and Canzano are pretty much whom I trust anymore.
I'm a bit surprised--read STUNNED!--by the conference's (Commissioner's?) response to the ESPN $30 mill offer. The $50M was insulting, like they wanted ESPN to walk, rather than actually negotiate. That was suicidal. You come back at $40M, maybe $37.5M and maybe negotiate closer to $34-35M. We'd have a Pac-10 today (maybe 12 again with SDSU and SMU). This was beyond idiotic.
Right? Can you imagine being that far off with a counteroffer on a home or car?? SMH
“How so many smart people can make such stupid decisions.”
What if they're not that smart? USC and UCLA had the admissions scandal. Stanford's president is resigning because he made up a bunch of his research. Oregon State hired F King Alexander without doing ANY vetting. That's a quarter of your conference! They're not that smart. And when it came time to make decisions, none of them had any idea how. I mean, how in God's name did any of them believe they were getting low-balled at $30M? Because they're not that smart.
What the presidents have going for them is for the most part no one ever peeks behind the curtain. Everyone just assumes that because they've got all those letters after their name that they must know some secret. They don't.
On that point, four major west coast universities are about to learn a painful lesson in how much it costs to make all that B1G money all because no one ever stopped to ask. Ask Rutgers how it's gone for them.
Being smart is a whole different thing than being intelligent. We are surrounded by very stupid people who would qualify as being intelligent, but can’t grab their behind with both hands if someone is holding it for them. They are commonly called bureaucrats.
It’s actually quite amazing that with all the high powered successful business alums and faculty these schools have, that the relatively inexperienced presidents and ADs are the ones in the middle of a major strategic business decision.
Business people aren't any smarter than the rest of us. They rely on luck as much as anyone else.
Smarts is only one component of it (and not everyone is equally smart.) There’s also training and experience. You might be as smart as the Boeing engineer down the street, but I don’t want you designing the airplane I’m riding on unless you have the proper education and you’ve been doing it for awhile.
Being a soothsayer and being able to make decisions in hindsight is way more valuable than being intelligent.
Also way easier to watch a poker hand being played than playing it with your competitors and dealt cards blind.
And if you have a relatively weak hand then your Ace and Queen up and leave your hand, it is very easy to observe that the player should have done X vs Y.
Amen to this. It mimicks the whole concept of college football being a wide open playoff that anyone can win. It will only reward 12-15 Southern Alliance programs and that has been proven as fact through all of the difference controversies throughout the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition, BCS and the pseudo so called playoff.
Good God. What a mess. Thanks for this account of it, John.
Painful to write.