07-27-2023, 04:51 AM
Now y'all know why I thought the Larry Scott criticism was over the top and misguided. There are and were significant structural weaknesses in the Pac that even pre-dated the arrival of Larry Scott.
And I think I can make a pretty sound argument Kliavkoff is no better, maybe worse than Larry Scott.
Te biggest criticism of Scott was keeping full ownership of the Pac-12 Network. He wouldn't partner with ESPN or Fox or anyone else, and wanted the conference to own 100% of the network. That ultimately meant limited carriage for the Pac-12 Network which hurt revenue. My question is did these companies even offer to air Pac-12 Network in exchange for equity? I know the assumption has been it was Larry's decision to decline such a deal, but was it really his decision?
Demographics and to a degree, Cal and Stanford not prioritizing football is what led to the current situation. I've said it before, and will say it again. Jim Delany or Roy Kramer could have been made the head of the Pac and I don't think the Pac would be in a materially much different place today than it is.
Anyone want to debate this?
And I think I can make a pretty sound argument Kliavkoff is no better, maybe worse than Larry Scott.
Te biggest criticism of Scott was keeping full ownership of the Pac-12 Network. He wouldn't partner with ESPN or Fox or anyone else, and wanted the conference to own 100% of the network. That ultimately meant limited carriage for the Pac-12 Network which hurt revenue. My question is did these companies even offer to air Pac-12 Network in exchange for equity? I know the assumption has been it was Larry's decision to decline such a deal, but was it really his decision?
Demographics and to a degree, Cal and Stanford not prioritizing football is what led to the current situation. I've said it before, and will say it again. Jim Delany or Roy Kramer could have been made the head of the Pac and I don't think the Pac would be in a materially much different place today than it is.
Anyone want to debate this?