Larry Scott: Pac-12 in Great Shape

[Buffnik]

As I've been reading up on this stuff with the Pac-12 presidents and what they see as "peer" institutions, I think it's different than a lot of people believe.

When they say "academics", they're not talking about undergraduate selectivity. They are talking about the intensity of graduate research. And not just any graduate research. They want to see it focused on engineering, medical, computers and the sciences. So even a university that may look good on the surface due to total research dollars, if that is heavily concentrated in agriculture then it's not an institution the Pac-12 presidents see as a peer institution.

For example, BYU is a fine school on academics if we're looking at how they might fit into the Pac-12 on how selective they are and how good of an undergraduate education you would get there. But they don't have the research focus that makes them a peer. Utah, however, did have that focus.

Most of the G5 schools in the west don't fit the profile. New Mexico does. CSU is probably there and Utah State close, but there's the agg focus that makes them questionable as "peer institutions". UNLV is close. Houston would be there. Rice would easily and absolutely be there, as would Tulane.

In the Big 12, KU, OU and UT would definitely be considered peer institutions, as would ISU but they're too far away geographically to be considered. TTU might be there. OSU and KSU are highly doubtful.

Whether this should matter at all when we're talking about an athletic conference is another question. Most of the country thinks the Pac-12 is crazy to care about this stuff and wouldn't hesitate to add BYU and BSU to increase the quality football game volume -- and they don't understand it when Pac-12 fans tell them it's never gonna happen.

Anyway, I do wonder if the revenue issues could alter this thinking. Because, honestly, the profile of "peer institutions" seems like it's also a profile for "institutions that don't care as much about football".

 

[Highlander]

Because I'm trying to run with the @sackman approach: #NeverTexas and find a creative approach to increasing revenues. Enhancing regional rivalries, owning the west by securing all major metros, increasing volume, avoiding full shares with these expansion partners, reducing travel costs, betting on the future, and maintaining conference culture with a brand identity that's true to what we are.

I don't think it's a short-term solution. But I've seen short-term solutions before when the Big 8 merged with 4 SWC programs. That easy short-term money isn't necessarily what should be driving things.

I wouldn't bet on Sackman being right in this situation.

 

[Buffnik]

I wouldn't bet on Sackman being right in this situation.

I don't know about "right".

I was working from the standpoint that he's got history on his side in regard to UT -- on paper, everything a conference could hope for from athletics success to academic prestige to market size/penetration. But in reality, UT kills conferences because it doesn't really want to be part of a group but only tolerates it as a necessary evil while going its own way and bullying the group.

So, assuming "no UT" and, by extension, "Big 12 stays together"... I was playing around with what could be an option to grow the Pac-12. Honestly, there's not much there for us besides either sticking with what we've got or making some bets on other western universities that don't really measure up right now.

 

[WasianCU]

Whether this should matter at all when we're talking about an athletic conference is another question. Most of the country thinks the Pac-12 is crazy to care about this stuff and wouldn't hesitate to add BYU and BSU to increase the quality football game volume -- and they don't understand it when Pac-12 fans tell them it's never gonna happen. .

Everytime I speak to someone about realignment I run into this problem. It always comes down to, "why do academics matter for an athletic conference?" If you have a good response I'd love to hear it. I generally mention something about overall prestige but I'd prefer a much more refined response.

 

[Highlander]

I don't know about "right".

I was working from the standpoint that he's got history on his side in regard to UT -- on paper, everything a conference could hope for from athletics success to academic prestige to market size/penetration. But in reality, UT kills conferences because it doesn't really want to be part of a group but only tolerates it as a necessary evil while going its own way and bullying the group.

So, assuming "no UT" and, by extension, "Big 12 stays together"... I was playing around with what could be an option to grow the Pac-12. Honestly, there's not much there for us besides either sticking with what we've got or making some bets on other western universities that don't really measure up right now.

I stand by the point that UT will never be able to bully and get its own way with the members of the Pac 12 as the make up would be much different than the SWC or the Big 12. Now, that may also be the reason they didn't join the Pac 10 originally or the last time, and it may be this realization kills any chance the Pac 12 has of them ever accepting an offer.

 

[Buffnik]

Everytime I speak to someone about realignment I run into this problem. It always comes down to, "why do academics matter for an athletic conference?" If you have a good response I'd love to hear it. I generally mention something about overall prestige but I'd prefer a much more refined response.

I believe that it's about institutional missions aligning. Within athletics, it leads to similar values on its role and how that defines mission, vision for PACN and whatnot. For academics, there's a strong belief that the conference relationships lead to cooperation on research initiatives and, more importantly, impacts prestige that drives whether you get grants & how much you get. I don't know that it's ever been proved that the research dollars, research collaboration & academic prestige is impacted at all by athletic conference affiliation, though.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

As I've been reading up on this stuff with the Pac-12 presidents and what they see as "peer" institutions, I think it's different than a lot of people believe.

When they say "academics", they're not talking about undergraduate selectivity. They are talking about the intensity of graduate research. And not just any graduate research. They want to see it focused on engineering, medical, computers and the sciences. So even a university that may look good on the surface due to total research dollars, if that is heavily concentrated in agriculture then it's not an institution the Pac-12 presidents see as a peer institution.

For example, BYU is a fine school on academics if we're looking at how they might fit into the Pac-12 on how selective they are and how good of an undergraduate education you would get there. But they don't have the research focus that makes them a peer. Utah, however, did have that focus.

Most of the G5 schools in the west don't fit the profile. New Mexico does. CSU is probably there and Utah State close, but there's the agg focus that makes them questionable as "peer institutions". UNLV is close. Houston would be there. Rice would easily and absolutely be there, as would Tulane.

In the Big 12, KU, OU and UT would definitely be considered peer institutions, as would ISU but they're too far away geographically to be considered. TTU might be there. OSU and KSU are highly doubtful.

Whether this should matter at all when we're talking about an athletic conference is another question. Most of the country thinks the Pac-12 is crazy to care about this stuff and wouldn't hesitate to add BYU and BSU to increase the quality football game volume -- and they don't understand it when Pac-12 fans tell them it's never gonna happen.

Anyway, I do wonder if the revenue issues could alter this thinking. Because, honestly, the profile of "peer institutions" seems like it's also a profile for "institutions that don't care as much about football".

When will USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington all say "**** this" and bail (even if it's just for football)? I have no idea how it would happen but I just can't imagine those institutions allowing their football programs to be part of a 2nd tier athletic conference.

 

[Big Jim]

When will USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington all say "**** this" and bail (even if it's just for football)?

Never.

 

[cowe6453]

Everytime I speak to someone about realignment I run into this problem. It always comes down to, "why do academics matter for an athletic conference?" If you have a good response I'd love to hear it. I generally mention something about overall prestige but I'd prefer a much more refined response.

To piggyback off Buffnik, the PAC 12 is interested in building a brand that stresses academics, and the athletic department is arguably nothing more than a means to an end in promoting / reinforcing / marketing that brand i.e. "The Conference of Champions [on and off the field]." Thus, you can't just look at athletics in a vacuum without considering the role it plays in effectuating that purpose. Letting in lesser academic schools erodes the overall "prestige" of the conference and its members and is balanced against additional exposure, profits, etc.

I guess you then might quantify that brand equity / "prestige" through boosters / donations, increased applications (and quality of applicants), faculty influence, research grants, collaboration / career opportunities through strong alumni network, etc.

E.g. many Clemson fans prefer the ACC even though the SEC is a much stronger and more profitable football conference / brand because they benefit from being associated with the likes of Duke, Wake, BC, UVA, UNC, etc. and the overall academic strength of the ACC vs. the SEC (I've had Clemson fans tell me this verbatim). So academics arguably matter and trump additional exposure, profits, etc., even if it might be less true today given Clemson's recent rise and the niche they've carved out in the ACC (and SC politics aside).

 

[8Jah]

View attachment 22791 I found this map of the US particularly useful to the discussion of choosing expansion with size of market being a major consideration.

It shows how the B1G is well situated, and how UNLV, Boise, and UNM don't move the needle.

It also shows a higher population density in the rural SEC with few giant markets.

The key to $$$ with the existing footprint is getting more passion and investment in Southern California.

How can I like this twice?

 

[Bison]

Given that our revenues is higher than the other P5 conferences except the SEC, the Pac-12 isn't doing so badly after all but high overhead cost of running the conference needs to be addressed.

 

[sackman]

Given that our revenues is higher than the other P5 conferences except the SEC, the Pac-12 isn't doing so badly after all but high overhead cost of running the conference needs to be addressed.

It probably doesn't help having the headquarters in San Francisco. Things are expensive there.

 

[8Jah]

Short term delta will be addressed by a dominate USC...which will drive the nations 2nd largest TV market. We all hate the Trojans, but SoCal pays huge attention when they are the nations elite team, but flakes away when they are down. Long term revenue is about establishing the brand and positioning for the massive changes comming in media.

 

[SandBuff]

Short term delta will be addressed by a dominate USC...which will drive the nations 2nd largest TV market. We all hate the Trojans, but SoCal pays huge attention when they are the nations elite team, but flakes away when they are down. Long term revenue is about establishing the brand and positioning for the massive changes comming in media.

I agree that if USC returns to top 3 form that will increase interest in the Pac-12 but it may not be enough to pull even With the SEC and B1G. The Pac-12 has an inherent problem of a lack of fan support relative to the SEC and B1G. It can add more fans and an additional Saturday TV slot by adding a central time zone pod. I'd go with Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Norte Dame. That would add a ton of fans and a couple of 11 AM games each Saturday. Imagine what the P12N would generate if it covered UT and ND. The tier one rights would also jump significantly. Ideally UT would give up the LHN and use the P12N. They may not like that but it's likely that ESPN won't renew that deal. It would also give them conference prestige equality with TA&M with superior acedemic affilation. ND came keep their deal with NBC. Their cut of the tier one contract would be less because of that, but still a high percentage as they bring a lot of value to the tier one with their away games. ND already likes playing USC and Stan on a regular basis. All these teams are a good cultural fit with the Pac-12.

If the Pac-12 wants to go for broke, they can also drop WSU and OSU in exchange for UNLV and U of British Columbia if UNLV ups their acedemics and UBC agrees to invest heavily to upgrade their AD. Nevada can move the Desert Research Institute from Reno to LV. UBC brings the Canadian market and has great acedemics and I'd give the conference a good reason to sponsor hockey.

I don't like dropping WSU and OSU, but they can join a depleted B12 along with SDSU, BSU, and BYU. When the next round of expansion does occur, CSU's AD may be on the verge of shutting down as they struggle to pay the bonds that financed their stadium. If they still exist, they should form a conference consisting of them, Wyo, AFA, UNM, NMSU, and UTEP. That would be a nice rivalry conference that can be traveled by bus.

My Pac-12 dream scenario is four pods
Cali - USC, UCLA, Cal, Stan
Basin - ASU, UA, UU, UNLV
North - CU, Ore, UW, UBC
Plains - UT, Okl, KU, ND
That would be a conference that can generate some money and do well in all sports. And yes, I'm a dreamer.

Please pass this on to Larry Scott.

 

[WasianCU]

I agree that if USC returns to top 3 form that will increase interest in the Pac-12 but it may not be enough to pull even. The Pac-12 has an inherent problem of a lack of fan support relative to the SEC and B1G. It can add more fans and an additional Saturday TV slot by adding a central time zone pod. I'd go with Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Norte Dame. That would add a ton of fans and a couple of 11 AM games each Saturday. Imagine what the P12N would generate if it covered UT and ND. The tier one rights would also jump significantly. Ideally UT would give up the LHN and use the P12N. They may not like that but it's likely that ESPN won't renew that deal. It would also give them conference prestige equality with TA&M with superior acedemic affilation. ND came keep their deal with NBC. Their cut of the tier one contract would be less because of that, but still a high percentage as they bring a lot of value to the tier one with their away games. ND already likes playing USC and Stan on a regular basis. All these teams are a good cultural fit with the Pac-12.

If the Pac-12 wants to go for broke, they can also drop WSU and OSU in exchange for UNLV and U of British Columbia if UNLV ups their acedemics and UBC agrees to invest heavily to upgrade their AD. Nevada can move the Desert Research Institute from Reno to LV. UBC brings the Canadian market and has great acedemics and I'd give the conference a good reason to sponsor hockey.

I don't like dropping WSU and OSU, but they can join a depleted B12 along with SDSU, BSU, and BYU. When the next round of expansion does occur, CSU's AD may be on the verge of shutting down as they struggle to pay the bonds that financed their stadium. If they still exist, they should form a conference consisting of them, Wyo, AFA, UNM, NMSU, and UTEP. That would be a nice rivalry conference that can be traveled by bus.

My Pac-12 dream scenario is four pods
Cali - USC, UCLA, Cal, Stan
Basin - ASU, UA, UU, UNLV
North - CU, Ore, UW, UBC
Plains - UT, Okl, KU, ND
That would be a conference that can generate some money and do well in all sports. And yes, I'm a dreamer.

Please pass this on to Larry Scott.

I don't even know where to begin on this...Oh well, dream big.

 

[Deleted member 807]

What, exactly, is in it for UT to join the PAC?

I think we've exhausted the discussion about why the PAC would want to look at Texas.

It's not clear the money is any better for the Longhorns out west than with other options like going independent or looking to the B1G or ACC.

The Longhorns would be forced into playing more road games outside Texas.

They'd be asked to give up the LHN.

They'd be relegated to status as an equity member instead of the de facto conference mob boss.

More of their games would start in late night time slots.

With this is mind, somebody please craft a compelling argument that would sell UT on the PAC that doesn't include some big concessions.

 

[SandBuff]

What, exactly, is in it for UT to join the PAC?

I think we've exhausted the discussion about why the PAC would want to look at Texas.

It's not clear the money is any better for the Longhorns out west than with other options like going independent or looking to the B1G or ACC.

The Longhorns would be forced into playing more road games outside Texas.

They'd be asked to give up the LHN.

They'd be relegated to status as an equity member instead of the de facto conference mob boss.

More of their games would start in late night time slots.

With this is mind, somebody please craft a compelling argument that would sell UT on the PAC that doesn't include some big concessions.

I think the biggest reason is competition with A&M. They are in the SEC which is definitely the best football conference and if I remember correctly, A&M has been recruiting better than UT since joining that conference. The expanded Pac-12 that I described could be close to the sec football wise and an overall better conference athletically. Each year the Pac-12 wins the most national championships and Stanford pretty much always wins the learfield cup. The Pac-12 also produces the most olympians. So for those reasons more than the monetary reasons could attract UT. UT may already have more money then they can spend. If Red McCombs and the other major donors wanted it, it could happen.

I'm not saying any of this is likely, just want it would be like if I pulled the strings.

 

[4DemBuffs]

I will add that Washington getting back to former standard and sustaining it (they look to be on that path) along with USC will make the conference so much more valuable. Dub has the money, stadium, history and fan base to be a national figure.

Then you add in CU sustaining and building upon the foundation they have now, UCLA finally finding a coach who can make them actually reach their potential and Stanford keeping what they have going on and you'll have something in the PAC-12 that can't be ignored nationally.

That's 5 teams that should be ranked in the top 25 to start every year.

 

[sackman]

Please pass this on to Larry Scott.

I will shoot the first person to forward this to Larry Scott.

 

[Buffnik]

This isn't a good look for the Pac-12.

 

[onealcd]

Dafuq is this media buyback?

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

Dafuq is this media buyback?

Each school pays a certain amount back to the conference to fund the operation of the network.

 

[onealcd]

Each school pays a certain amount back to the conference to fund the operation of the network.

Why wouldn't they just distribute the correct amount in the first place?

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

Why wouldn't they just distribute the correct amount in the first place?

Pretty sure they do. I believe this graphic is showing that while the PAC-12 revenue per school is lower than peers in other conferences, the number itself is a touch misleading because we are all paying for our own network.

 

[onealcd]

Pretty sure they do. I believe this graphic is showing that while the PAC-12 revenue per school is lower than peers in other conferences, the number itself is a touch misleading because we are all paying for our own network.

Okay. I'm just confused because I saw some graphics a couple weeks ago showing PAC 12 as one of the top two in terms of revenue per school but the distribution was obviously smaller, but those articles said that distribution was almost $30 million.

 

[Buffnik]

Okay. I'm just confused because I saw some graphics a couple weeks ago showing PAC 12 as one of the top two in terms of revenue per school but the distribution was obviously smaller, but those articles said that distribution was almost $30 million.

I believe the number is a bit loaded to make the Big 12 look good. Iowa State isn't making as much conference revenue as Iowa.

 

[onealcd]

I believe the number is a bit loaded to make the Big 12 look good. Iowa State isn't making as much conference revenue as Iowa.

Yeah any maybe they are taking the only official numbers from the PAC 12 which are a year behind? Because Wilner came out with his article showing the PAC 12 distributed 29.5 million per school on average (estimated but he is always within half a million either way):

 

[onealcd]

Also, it's time to move the PAC 12 headquarters and networks offices to Phoenix. Other conference commission said have to be laughing their ass off as Scott having his office in Walnut Creek along with paying for San Fran studio space.

 

[Buffnik]

Also, it's time to move the PAC 12 headquarters and networks offices to Phoenix. Other conference commission said have to be laughing their ass off as Scott having his office in Walnut Creek along with paying for San Fran studio space.

I think it should move to Las Vegas, personally. Even lower operational costs and no corporate state taxes (assuming that PACN is not exempt like the conference is). No state taxes for personnel also allows for lower salaries.

Cost of living index based on $100k salary in Las Vegas and what you'd have to make in Scottsdale or Walnut Creek:
Scottsdale: $132,727
Walnut Creek: $203,158

Las Vegas and Phoenix/Glendale are about the same, so either would work. Guess it would depend on whether having things neutral/centralized or in a Pac-12 city is preferable. In terms of infrastructure, probably about the same. Both are easy to get to for the media & digital tech folks in LA and the Bay. Anyway, many of the costs could be cut in half without losing access to talent.

 

[onealcd]

I think it should move to Las Vegas, personally. Even lower operational costs and no corporate state taxes (assuming that PACN is not exempt like the conference is). No state taxes for personnel also allows for lower salaries.

Cost of living index based on $100k salary in Las Vegas and what you'd have to make in Scottsdale or Walnut Creek:
Scottsdale: $132,727
Walnut Creek: $203,158

Las Vegas and Phoenix/Glendale are about the same, so either would work. Guess it would depend on whether having things neutral/centralized or in a Pac-12 city is preferable. In terms of infrastructure, probably about the same. Both are easy to get to for the media & digital tech folks in LA and the Bay. Anyway, many of the costs could be cut in half without losing access to talent.

Yeah Vegas would be fine, only reason I could see Phoenix being better is there are a ton of ex athletes that live there and it could potentially help the on air talent/analysts.