Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options

Mike Martin only has it half right

DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 59,928
First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
Founders Club
He blames the fall of the Pac-12 on Larry Scott. The blame lies with the conference athletic directors and presidents that allowed him to remain in power for far too long. In the same manner that the 2008 disaster was Mark Emmert's fault and not Willingham's.

https://realdawghuskies.com/opinion-the-demise-of-the-conference-of-champions-was-inevitable-thanks-to-larry-scott/
«13

Comments

  • Options
    CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 28,841
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes Combo Breaker
    Founders Club
  • Options
    CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 28,841
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes Combo Breaker
    Founders Club
    Consider the source, Martin probably doesn’t want to on Cohen’s bad side by placing blame on her peers and supervisors.
  • Options
    rodmansragerodmansrage Member Posts: 6,015
    5 Up Votes First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes
    The blame lies with the conference athletic directors and presidents that allowed him to remain in power for far too long


    fuck the 'let him stay too long,' they hired him. he should have said 'fuck it' and let texas bring their stupid ass longhorn network, nobody watched it (inb4 'nobody watches the p12 network either,' youve clearly never been to china) and figured it out later and set a crazy high exit clause.

    i guess you cant expect too much from a guy who focused on tennis.
  • Options
    theknowledgetheknowledge Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 4,558
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Comment
    Swaye's Wigwam

    The blame lies with the conference athletic directors and presidents that allowed him to remain in power for far too long


    fuck the 'let him stay too long,' they hired him. he should have said 'fuck it' and let texas bring their stupid ass longhorn network, nobody watched it (inb4 'nobody watches the p12 network either,' youve clearly never been to china) and figured it out later and set a crazy high exit clause.

    i guess you cant expect too much from a guy who focused on tennis.

    He had record viewers of women’s tennis on his watch! Serena Williams probably had nothing to do with it. It was all Larry.

    SureGif
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 101,175
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    Women's tennis has always been the top female sport to attract larger audiences. Because they are really good at it.

  • Options
    AtomicDawgAtomicDawg Member Posts: 6,974
    5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes
    If I remember right the AD’s called scott out on his bs and were likely a lot of the leaks that got to canzano and Wilmer prior to his removal. The presidents on the I other hand were defending him to the end.

    West coast presidents do t think football matters is what it comes down to.
  • Options
    PostGameOrangeSlicesPostGameOrangeSlices Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 24,502
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes Combo Breaker
    Founders Club

    If I remember right the AD’s called scott out on his bs and were likely a lot of the leaks that got to canzano and Wilmer prior to his removal. The presidents on the I other hand were defending him to the end.

    West coast presidents do t think football matters is what it comes down to.

    UCLA, ASU, and OSU presidents apparently vetoed efforts to remove him
  • Options
    WoolleyDoogWoolleyDoog Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 2,482
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Comment
    Swaye's Wigwam
    As much shit as Larry and the individual school brass deserve there's a lot of shit out of everyone's control that play a factor - mostly the changing of cultures and demographics on the west coast, especially the west coast cities. I know 20 years is a long ago but I keep picturing the crowd at the 2003 Cal USC game when Cal upset the Trojans and what it was like being at that stadium in 2022.
  • Options
    louism2washlouism2wash Member Posts: 333
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Comment
    This is pure conjecture so be warned that I have no idea what I'm talking about but it seems like the last 15+ years or so were a period in which college football had massive changes mostly related to money and ballooning pay packages of TV deals. Certain conferences saw the landscape changing and realized that they needed to jump in with both feet and start taking advantage of everything this new era had to offer. Conference brass combined with university presidents in the SEC and Big 10 were just way better at navigating the changes than the rest of the conferences. Not sure why but it's clear the Larry Scott and our conference presidents just didn't have the sense of urgency that the Big 10 and SEC had.

    Big 10 and SEC jumped out to a early and sizable lead and just kept leveraging their position to gain a bigger and bigger advantage. It probably helped that those conferences were the most relevant from the standpoint of the quality of their teams over the last 15 years as well. The Pac 12 was fucking abysmal during that period. ESPN and the like didn't really "need" the Pac 12 and they still don't.
  • Options
    AtomicDawgAtomicDawg Member Posts: 6,974
    5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes

    This is pure conjecture so be warned that I have no idea what I'm talking about but it seems like the last 15+ years or so were a period in which college football had massive changes mostly related to money and ballooning pay packages of TV deals. Certain conferences saw the landscape changing and realized that they needed to jump in with both feet and start taking advantage of everything this new era had to offer. Conference brass combined with university presidents in the SEC and Big 10 were just way better at navigating the changes than the rest of the conferences. Not sure why but it's clear the Larry Scott and our conference presidents just didn't have the sense of urgency that the Big 10 and SEC had.

    Big 10 and SEC jumped out to a early and sizable lead and just kept leveraging their position to gain a bigger and bigger advantage. It probably helped that those conferences were the most relevant from the standpoint of the quality of their teams over the last 15 years as well. The Pac 12 was fucking abysmal during that period. ESPN and the like didn't really "need" the Pac 12 and they still don't.

    Someone has to play the late games. You’re right though, they don’t need the pac 12 to do it. They just need a handful of west coast teams with decent markets regardless of what conference they’re in. This may be the only thing saving udub/oregon. If they go to the big 10, the big 12 has a lot of motivation to get west coast teams to fill that void, otherwise they can’t compete with fox for the same time slot.
  • Options
    WoolleyDoogWoolleyDoog Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 2,482
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Comment
    Swaye's Wigwam

    This is pure conjecture so be warned that I have no idea what I'm talking about but it seems like the last 15+ years or so were a period in which college football had massive changes mostly related to money and ballooning pay packages of TV deals. Certain conferences saw the landscape changing and realized that they needed to jump in with both feet and start taking advantage of everything this new era had to offer. Conference brass combined with university presidents in the SEC and Big 10 were just way better at navigating the changes than the rest of the conferences. Not sure why but it's clear the Larry Scott and our conference presidents just didn't have the sense of urgency that the Big 10 and SEC had.

    Big 10 and SEC jumped out to a early and sizable lead and just kept leveraging their position to gain a bigger and bigger advantage. It probably helped that those conferences were the most relevant from the standpoint of the quality of their teams over the last 15 years as well. The Pac 12 was fucking abysmal during that period. ESPN and the like didn't really "need" the Pac 12 and they still don't.

    Someone has to play the late games. You’re right though, they don’t need the pac 12 to do it. They just need a handful of west coast teams with decent markets regardless of what conference they’re in. This may be the only thing saving udub/oregon. If they go to the big 10, the big 12 has a lot of motivation to get west coast teams to fill that void, otherwise they can’t compete with fox for the same time slot.
    You're right, the need for a late window might be what saves Oregon and Washington's asses. I don't think the LA schools alone can each week realistically fill up that late window. The Big 10 would also be wise to try and capitalize on the Friday night window, especially because the SEC seems to have no interest in it and there's NFL so it's kind of a free lunch.
  • Options
    EwaDawgEwaDawg Member Posts: 3,992
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment
    edited May 2023

    NBC doesn’t need UW/Oregon but it sure would round out their content. Owning LA, Seattle and Nike U sets up for some potentially great Saturday night football. Wisconsin at UCLA, Michigan at UW, Penn St at Oregon or Ohio State at USC are attractive games that should keep East Coast eyes open long enough to see the product. Pair that with the round Robin of the four west coast teams and you’ve suddenly got more interest and eyeballs than you’ve had for quite some tim
    Will you potentially be playing a 9am game in Minneapolis or Iowa City in November? SureGif, Take the good with the bad.

    I’d take UWs chances of making a playoff from the Big10 over the P12. 12 playoff slots:
    1-from the top ranked AAC, MW or Sun Belt
    1 or 2- B12
    1 or 2-ACC
    1-ND if top 12
    3 or 4-SEC
    3 or 4-B10
    Can UW place top three or four in the B10 on the yearly? If DeBoer is the guy then absolutely. That 70 million per year paired with his drive to win will make it so. If he’s not the guy then UW is Minnesota and they’ll be scratching for the Music City Bowl. I’ll take the $$$ and the chance at this point over playing in the reanimated corpse P12 and I’m sure DeBoer would too if Cauce and Cohen are smart enough to be asking him.

    I’d take UWs chances of making a playoff from the Big10 over the P12.

    Agree except for the previous retardation. As the 12 teams is a given under either scenario. And the average of the lower 16 in the B12 is >>>>>>>>than the average of the worst of the Pac 8/10.
  • Options
    Kingdome_UrinalsKingdome_Urinals Member Posts: 2,605
    First Comment 5 Up Votes First Anniversary 5 Awesomes
    SEC and B1G had a cultural mandate to go big in the mega TV deal era. That was a no brainer for those institutional leaders.

    PAC presidents, outside of usc and maybe Oregon had no such urgency.
  • Options
    Kingdome_UrinalsKingdome_Urinals Member Posts: 2,605
    First Comment 5 Up Votes First Anniversary 5 Awesomes
    edited May 2023
    If pac teams got into the B1G even Stanford vs ucla would get much bigger ratings than it would during the pac days.

    If they are official league competition for other B1G schools it brings in extra midwestern eyeballs.
  • Options
    Kingdome_UrinalsKingdome_Urinals Member Posts: 2,605
    First Comment 5 Up Votes First Anniversary 5 Awesomes

    This is pure conjecture so be warned that I have no idea what I'm talking about but it seems like the last 15+ years or so were a period in which college football had massive changes mostly related to money and ballooning pay packages of TV deals. Certain conferences saw the landscape changing and realized that they needed to jump in with both feet and start taking advantage of everything this new era had to offer. Conference brass combined with university presidents in the SEC and Big 10 were just way better at navigating the changes than the rest of the conferences. Not sure why but it's clear the Larry Scott and our conference presidents just didn't have the sense of urgency that the Big 10 and SEC had.

    Big 10 and SEC jumped out to a early and sizable lead and just kept leveraging their position to gain a bigger and bigger advantage. It probably helped that those conferences were the most relevant from the standpoint of the quality of their teams over the last 15 years as well. The Pac 12 was fucking abysmal during that period. ESPN and the like didn't really "need" the Pac 12 and they still don't.

    Someone has to play the late games. You’re right though, they don’t need the pac 12 to do it. They just need a handful of west coast teams with decent markets regardless of what conference they’re in. This may be the only thing saving udub/oregon. If they go to the big 10, the big 12 has a lot of motivation to get west coast teams to fill that void, otherwise they can’t compete with fox for the same time slot.
    West coast teams in the B1G would bring in more national viewers than if they were in the PAC.

    Moving to the B1G adds value and viewers to any former PAC program and its games.

    The networks would be creating value by helping pac teams to the B1G.
  • Options
    Kingdome_UrinalsKingdome_Urinals Member Posts: 2,605
    First Comment 5 Up Votes First Anniversary 5 Awesomes
    ntxduck said:

    Usc is at fault. The conference’s most storied program, in by far the largest media market, decided to take 12 years off of football. And it was precisely in that 10 year period where the new tv contracts and realignment went down. If Lincoln Riley had been hired in 2012 instead of 2022, the conference Is still together and each school is making 70-80% more through tv.

    If Pete Carroll, chip Kelly, and Jim harbaugh had stayed….

    The pac would be much better. Also, uw would probably still suck. Stiff competition.

    Anyway, at one point in the 2000s the PAC was shit hot.
  • Options
    MelloDawgMelloDawg Member Posts: 6,099
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes

    He blames the fall of the Pac-12 on Larry Scott. The blame lies with the conference athletic directors and presidents that allowed him to remain in power for far too long. In the same manner that the 2008 disaster was Mark Emmert's fault and not Willingham's.

    https://realdawghuskies.com/opinion-the-demise-of-the-conference-of-champions-was-inevitable-thanks-to-larry-scott/

    Sounds like you’re saying it’s time to take the gloves off.
Sign In or Register to comment.