John: For a whole year you have been telling us the great things about Commissioner George. You are blaming Larry Scott for a lot of things..Probably well deserved. But, Commissioner George was the one in charge when the Pac 12 and ACC vetoed the 12 team NCAA football playoff. I believe for
more money. Now it has come back to bite him in the backside. Maybe his decision will be the demise of the Pac 12. USC and UCLA are having the last laugh.
The Big 12 did NOT veto the expanded playoff, their commissioner was one of the architects of it. Did you mean ACC?
George K. has committed two unforgivable sins:
1) did not see the USC/UCLA defection coming, even though both schools have groused for years that they were responsible for the lion's share of the Pac12's value, but only received the same share as the low value schools. That, in conjunction with the widening gap between the Pac and B1G/SEC should have had him on the phone with USC/UCLS EVERY DAY feeling them out and testing the waters.
2) He initially lied about his vote on the expanded playoffs. After it was voted down, he said "the Pac 12 is in favor of expanded playoffs". Only when a source leaked that the only three Nay votes were the B1G, ACC, and Pac 12 did he come clean that he was a no vote, and then gave a tepid excuse for why. If both the ACC and Pac 12 had voted in their best interest for an immediate expanded playoff, it's possible the B1G wouldn't have stayed on an island and been the lone Nay vote.
I'm not saying George K. is Larry Scott 2.0 or that he should be fired, but the early returns are not good and he should definitely be on a hot seat.
Happy 4th to you and your family John - not sure when you’re going to get a day off with all this drama!
Yes, keeping USC would have been the #1 job for George. But in his defense:
1. The Texas/Oklahoma SEC move came just a few months after he started in this role, likely still trying to get his bearings.
2. The “Alliance” obviously meant nothing to the B1G, and they acted in bad faith and were disingenuous in their verbal agreement with the Pac12/ACC. But how would George know they were lying to his face?
3. Carol Folt was one of the 12 Presidents who hired him. Multiple reports say this USC conversation began last fall. How could George anticipate that Carol would hire him, then bolt the conference?
I’m not his apologist - clearly he’s been naive. But the level of dishonesty and subterfuge is off the charts on this whole thing.
If I’m George I’m on the phone with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Clemson, Florida St, Miami, Baylor, Oklahoma St, West Virginia. These schools aren’t going to be satisfied being left on the outside. Form a third mega conference and challenge this new world order controlled by SEC/B1G.
The playoff decision was Ill - advised, but that alone wouldn’t have kept USC/UCLA. Once Fox pushed the B1G they were going to get an offer hard to turn down. George is learning hard lessons right now. I hope today he’s playing offense and going to his strength- Vegas. That is where the Pac10 future lies. Larry Scott owns most of this - but placing blame isn’t going to fix anything.
As an OSU grad one minute I very pissed and another very sad. Realistically I think the Beavs and Cougs are going to be the odd men out in all of this when the dust settles. I think of what will happen to baseball, softball, women’s basketball, and gymnastics…all sports that perform/rank well nationally but will suffer not being in a Power 5 conference. Will an Olympic athlete like Jade Carey stick with OSU or transfer out. Does Scott Rueck move to another school when he can’t recruit 4 & 5 star athletes. The pissed off me says that despite the financial payday, all the left out schools should refuse to schedule Big10/SEC schools in football so they can’t pad wins. Make them play all 12 games in conference and have them cannibalize their records. Would a perpetual 6-6 record work for UCLA even with the financial payout? Very disgusted at this mess.
I agree a total shunning of usc-UCLA in all sports scheduling. I even think we should cancel all current scheduled games. Couples going through a divorce don't sleep together.
spin is tiresome. UCLA and USC were chosen not because they have sizzle these days but for reasons nearly unrelated to their programs. They are in a huge media market. It’s same reason those schools once dominated major sports—they exist a densely populated recruiting hotbed. The spin here however is that they were chosen for Big 10 because they had outgrown a deteriorating Pac 12. Really? How’s this parlor game: Swap media markets with Oregon and Oregon State. Guess who goes to Big 10. As for sizzle, Oregon alone has four times the number of major sport conference championships (9) as USC (1) and UCLA (1) combined over the last 13 years. End of rant.
You're certainly right, Drex, to highlight Oregon's recent success. But I think you're limiting your definition of "sizzle" too much? First, the LA schools do reside in a recruiting hotbed--nothing will change that. Sizzle has to include potential upside in your take. They've both been down recently, yes, but they've also proven they can win big with the right coach--much bigger (11 National Championships) than Oregon has ever proven. Just look at the hype Lincoln Riley's getting--they're picked by many to win the conference and he hasn't played a game yet! Why? Historically proven potential. I'd say that's sizzle. Even with USC's dismal coaching carousel, Oregon is only 9-6 against them since 2000. Hardly dominance when they've enjoyed their best opportunity to take full advantage. Secondly, they weren't chosen because they felt they "outgrew" the Pac-12. That's truly spin. They left because it simply was a smart business move, unless your management model is to avoid doubling your revenue. It's the same reason the Oregon schools would give their firstborn to follow them.
Good morning, John--happy 4th to you and your family. Sorry, but disagree on Oregon over Stanford for Big10. Yes, Ducks have a national brand presently but it's more show than substance, i.e., a weak football history in the traditional sense. IMO, Stanford's academic national brand far outweighs the sports angle for the Big10 as it relates to Oregon. Coupled with ND, who already has a rivalry with Stanford, the Big10 gets both another big media market (SF), maintains tradition, and the posturing of prioritizing academics. This doesn't even mention the obvious fact that Phil Knight's involvement is short-lived. Once ND commits, which I think is imminent, I see Stanford as their partner.
As I see it, it’s not a stanford/Oregon deal it’s Wash/Oregon & then everyone else. Because Wash/Oregon will be a matched pair wherever they end up. Hell, how can the Ducks give up kicking my Huskies every year :) !
I cannot foresee a situation where Oregon and Washington split the sheets. That just makes no sense.
Often the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I see that in both directions here - for the PAC-12 and this USC-UCLA move. I suspect travel won’t be the only complaint.
Well said. My point was mainly to vent against the newly restored USC arrogance, abetted by the local press. I get weary of it here. Their success has always been rooted in their enormous recruiting advantage and their good fortune of being in a media rich environment. But of course that's not the way they tell it. Oregon fans spent a half century clawing against the USC advantages, then Uncle Phil came along and began leveling things. I think JC/Bill Moos had it right today: the LA schools won't be putting up many 10-win seasons in Big 10. Yep. They are now in a conference with universities that can match their advantages 100,000 seat stadium by 100,000 seat stadium. (By the way, is this STEVE Smith?)
For anyone who prefers to go to a local source for Blazers news, vs. ESPN, I find it very interesting and strange that there are no articles on blazers.com about the recent trades with GS and Detroit for GP2 and Jerami Grant. Sure, it's the off season but I would still expect the site to be up-to-date on the draft, etc.
Yes, this is a small annoyance but still another example of why the Blazers are not in-tune with the fans/community. It pains me that, with a little effort from their marketing or PR dept., they could do so much to restore some of the disappointment that was caused by Olshey's presence and the current ownership situation.
As a Duck I would prefer a PacSouthWest Conf merger with the Big 12 with ESPN/Phil backing than a contorted Big10 Midwest/East coast dysfunctional life for the MANY non-football/basketball student-athletes. Worth a little less money to retain a more sane model which will likely in the long term result in a healthier championship model.
John, Not sure which I enjoy more: your tales of the family Canzano or your musings on the Pac 12. Keep up the excellent work. You and John Wilner have correctly pointed to Larry Scott as the author of the demise of the Pac 12 as we know it. He was horrible in every way as a Commissioner with the exception of his limitless ability to sell himself, obtain an excessive salary (with raises that could not have been based on performance) and shower himself with fringe benefits that would make a Saudi prince blush. However, the Conference CEOs bear a huge amount of the blame for the demise of the Pac 12 as a result of their failure to act to remove Scott year after year after year when his failures were all too apparent and the Conference was falling further and further behind the SEC and Big 10. They apparently cared less about football than Scott despite the fact that it is the financial engine that drives big time college athletics. It's a sad circumstance that has lead SC and UCLA to leave the Conference, but one that could have been avoided with effective management by a qualify commissioner (such as Kliavkoff) and reasonable oversight, attention and action by the University CEOs. Ironic that that Pac 12 Conference will now be going the way of Scott's "cutting edge" brain child, the Pac 12 Network. Thank you, Larry. Thank you University CEOs.
I don't blame GK for not overtly sucking up to USC. I reckon they have been looking to bolt since before he arrived. As for hot dogs: Went to Dodger Stadium for the first time a few years ago and treated myself to the storied Dodger Dog. Wasn't bad, but I'll take all-beef Ball Park on the barbie instead.
Larry Scott's major blunder was not having a Sugar Daddy for the Pac-12 Network. Although 100% ownership seems smart at the time, it turns out that the programming was hard to market.
The Big Ten Network was majority-owned by Fox and the SEC Network had Disney ownership. Those conference networks were "bundled" with other Fox/ESPN programming when they were marketed. The Pac-12 Network didn't have that leverage and that's why it was a hard sell.
John: For a whole year you have been telling us the great things about Commissioner George. You are blaming Larry Scott for a lot of things..Probably well deserved. But, Commissioner George was the one in charge when the Pac 12 and ACC vetoed the 12 team NCAA football playoff. I believe for
more money. Now it has come back to bite him in the backside. Maybe his decision will be the demise of the Pac 12. USC and UCLA are having the last laugh.
Big Ten also vetoed it. So did the Big 12. It was not going to pass and he stood in solidarity with the “alliance…”
Bigger sin by the new commissioner was that this happened on his watch. He had one job… Keep USC.
The Big 12 did NOT veto the expanded playoff, their commissioner was one of the architects of it. Did you mean ACC?
George K. has committed two unforgivable sins:
1) did not see the USC/UCLA defection coming, even though both schools have groused for years that they were responsible for the lion's share of the Pac12's value, but only received the same share as the low value schools. That, in conjunction with the widening gap between the Pac and B1G/SEC should have had him on the phone with USC/UCLS EVERY DAY feeling them out and testing the waters.
2) He initially lied about his vote on the expanded playoffs. After it was voted down, he said "the Pac 12 is in favor of expanded playoffs". Only when a source leaked that the only three Nay votes were the B1G, ACC, and Pac 12 did he come clean that he was a no vote, and then gave a tepid excuse for why. If both the ACC and Pac 12 had voted in their best interest for an immediate expanded playoff, it's possible the B1G wouldn't have stayed on an island and been the lone Nay vote.
I'm not saying George K. is Larry Scott 2.0 or that he should be fired, but the early returns are not good and he should definitely be on a hot seat.
Happy 4th to you and your family John - not sure when you’re going to get a day off with all this drama!
Yes, keeping USC would have been the #1 job for George. But in his defense:
1. The Texas/Oklahoma SEC move came just a few months after he started in this role, likely still trying to get his bearings.
2. The “Alliance” obviously meant nothing to the B1G, and they acted in bad faith and were disingenuous in their verbal agreement with the Pac12/ACC. But how would George know they were lying to his face?
3. Carol Folt was one of the 12 Presidents who hired him. Multiple reports say this USC conversation began last fall. How could George anticipate that Carol would hire him, then bolt the conference?
I’m not his apologist - clearly he’s been naive. But the level of dishonesty and subterfuge is off the charts on this whole thing.
If I’m George I’m on the phone with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Clemson, Florida St, Miami, Baylor, Oklahoma St, West Virginia. These schools aren’t going to be satisfied being left on the outside. Form a third mega conference and challenge this new world order controlled by SEC/B1G.
The playoff decision was Ill - advised, but that alone wouldn’t have kept USC/UCLA. Once Fox pushed the B1G they were going to get an offer hard to turn down. George is learning hard lessons right now. I hope today he’s playing offense and going to his strength- Vegas. That is where the Pac10 future lies. Larry Scott owns most of this - but placing blame isn’t going to fix anything.
As an OSU grad one minute I very pissed and another very sad. Realistically I think the Beavs and Cougs are going to be the odd men out in all of this when the dust settles. I think of what will happen to baseball, softball, women’s basketball, and gymnastics…all sports that perform/rank well nationally but will suffer not being in a Power 5 conference. Will an Olympic athlete like Jade Carey stick with OSU or transfer out. Does Scott Rueck move to another school when he can’t recruit 4 & 5 star athletes. The pissed off me says that despite the financial payday, all the left out schools should refuse to schedule Big10/SEC schools in football so they can’t pad wins. Make them play all 12 games in conference and have them cannibalize their records. Would a perpetual 6-6 record work for UCLA even with the financial payout? Very disgusted at this mess.
I agree a total shunning of usc-UCLA in all sports scheduling. I even think we should cancel all current scheduled games. Couples going through a divorce don't sleep together.
Is it possible to take Larry Scott to court for noncompliance of his obligations and taking the Pac12 to the cleaners?
I incompetence for sure
I live in LA. The spin here about jump to Big 10
spin is tiresome. UCLA and USC were chosen not because they have sizzle these days but for reasons nearly unrelated to their programs. They are in a huge media market. It’s same reason those schools once dominated major sports—they exist a densely populated recruiting hotbed. The spin here however is that they were chosen for Big 10 because they had outgrown a deteriorating Pac 12. Really? How’s this parlor game: Swap media markets with Oregon and Oregon State. Guess who goes to Big 10. As for sizzle, Oregon alone has four times the number of major sport conference championships (9) as USC (1) and UCLA (1) combined over the last 13 years. End of rant.
You're certainly right, Drex, to highlight Oregon's recent success. But I think you're limiting your definition of "sizzle" too much? First, the LA schools do reside in a recruiting hotbed--nothing will change that. Sizzle has to include potential upside in your take. They've both been down recently, yes, but they've also proven they can win big with the right coach--much bigger (11 National Championships) than Oregon has ever proven. Just look at the hype Lincoln Riley's getting--they're picked by many to win the conference and he hasn't played a game yet! Why? Historically proven potential. I'd say that's sizzle. Even with USC's dismal coaching carousel, Oregon is only 9-6 against them since 2000. Hardly dominance when they've enjoyed their best opportunity to take full advantage. Secondly, they weren't chosen because they felt they "outgrew" the Pac-12. That's truly spin. They left because it simply was a smart business move, unless your management model is to avoid doubling your revenue. It's the same reason the Oregon schools would give their firstborn to follow them.
Good morning, John--happy 4th to you and your family. Sorry, but disagree on Oregon over Stanford for Big10. Yes, Ducks have a national brand presently but it's more show than substance, i.e., a weak football history in the traditional sense. IMO, Stanford's academic national brand far outweighs the sports angle for the Big10 as it relates to Oregon. Coupled with ND, who already has a rivalry with Stanford, the Big10 gets both another big media market (SF), maintains tradition, and the posturing of prioritizing academics. This doesn't even mention the obvious fact that Phil Knight's involvement is short-lived. Once ND commits, which I think is imminent, I see Stanford as their partner.
As I see it, it’s not a stanford/Oregon deal it’s Wash/Oregon & then everyone else. Because Wash/Oregon will be a matched pair wherever they end up. Hell, how can the Ducks give up kicking my Huskies every year :) !
I cannot foresee a situation where Oregon and Washington split the sheets. That just makes no sense.
Often the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I see that in both directions here - for the PAC-12 and this USC-UCLA move. I suspect travel won’t be the only complaint.
Well said. My point was mainly to vent against the newly restored USC arrogance, abetted by the local press. I get weary of it here. Their success has always been rooted in their enormous recruiting advantage and their good fortune of being in a media rich environment. But of course that's not the way they tell it. Oregon fans spent a half century clawing against the USC advantages, then Uncle Phil came along and began leveling things. I think JC/Bill Moos had it right today: the LA schools won't be putting up many 10-win seasons in Big 10. Yep. They are now in a conference with universities that can match their advantages 100,000 seat stadium by 100,000 seat stadium. (By the way, is this STEVE Smith?)
John… You are doing the best reporting out there. Where does Utah end up in this?
For anyone who prefers to go to a local source for Blazers news, vs. ESPN, I find it very interesting and strange that there are no articles on blazers.com about the recent trades with GS and Detroit for GP2 and Jerami Grant. Sure, it's the off season but I would still expect the site to be up-to-date on the draft, etc.
Yes, this is a small annoyance but still another example of why the Blazers are not in-tune with the fans/community. It pains me that, with a little effort from their marketing or PR dept., they could do so much to restore some of the disappointment that was caused by Olshey's presence and the current ownership situation.
Great job by your daughter by the way,they grow up so fast and from the sounds of your joyful story she is going to be just fine great job DAD.
Great job by your daughter by the way,they grow up so fast and from the sounds of your joyful story she is going to be just fine great job DAD.
DearJohn,
As a Duck I would prefer a PacSouthWest Conf merger with the Big 12 with ESPN/Phil backing than a contorted Big10 Midwest/East coast dysfunctional life for the MANY non-football/basketball student-athletes. Worth a little less money to retain a more sane model which will likely in the long term result in a healthier championship model.
The comments about Scott are right on. He has killed the Pac 12.
John, Not sure which I enjoy more: your tales of the family Canzano or your musings on the Pac 12. Keep up the excellent work. You and John Wilner have correctly pointed to Larry Scott as the author of the demise of the Pac 12 as we know it. He was horrible in every way as a Commissioner with the exception of his limitless ability to sell himself, obtain an excessive salary (with raises that could not have been based on performance) and shower himself with fringe benefits that would make a Saudi prince blush. However, the Conference CEOs bear a huge amount of the blame for the demise of the Pac 12 as a result of their failure to act to remove Scott year after year after year when his failures were all too apparent and the Conference was falling further and further behind the SEC and Big 10. They apparently cared less about football than Scott despite the fact that it is the financial engine that drives big time college athletics. It's a sad circumstance that has lead SC and UCLA to leave the Conference, but one that could have been avoided with effective management by a qualify commissioner (such as Kliavkoff) and reasonable oversight, attention and action by the University CEOs. Ironic that that Pac 12 Conference will now be going the way of Scott's "cutting edge" brain child, the Pac 12 Network. Thank you, Larry. Thank you University CEOs.
I don't blame GK for not overtly sucking up to USC. I reckon they have been looking to bolt since before he arrived. As for hot dogs: Went to Dodger Stadium for the first time a few years ago and treated myself to the storied Dodger Dog. Wasn't bad, but I'll take all-beef Ball Park on the barbie instead.
Larry Scott's major blunder was not having a Sugar Daddy for the Pac-12 Network. Although 100% ownership seems smart at the time, it turns out that the programming was hard to market.
The Big Ten Network was majority-owned by Fox and the SEC Network had Disney ownership. Those conference networks were "bundled" with other Fox/ESPN programming when they were marketed. The Pac-12 Network didn't have that leverage and that's why it was a hard sell.
You, family, enjoy too!!…😎