Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2019 12:38:41 GMT -5
In other words, I know the Conference! SU has an Athletic Department endowment which is in the $100s of millions I do believe (the entire University endowment is over 1 Billion). They are NOT going to be hurting! Afa the management (especially the Pac12Net) of the current conference fiscal situation? Sucks Big Time! They Will figure it out. A one billion dollar endowment is not very much for a major university. Stanford's is actually over $25 billion. Reading comprehension, O baby bear? My point was re: the AD. PS: " over 1 Billion can = $25B.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jan 9, 2019 13:35:23 GMT -5
I don't understand the infatuation the Presidents/Chancellors of the Pac 12 have for Larry Scott. He's been mediocre at best, and smarmy af. They starting to realize that Scott is in way over his head. They gave Scott so much autonomy from the beginning that they have undercut their influence and authority. Endorsing this latest mercenary approach suggests that the Presidents/Chancellors are the ones who feel in over their heads.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Jan 9, 2019 14:38:51 GMT -5
As far as football is concerned, the Pac-12 needs to revise its scheduling to make it more likely one of their teams can show up in the 4 team playoff, or they (along with the B1G) could try to push a policy of allowing only one team per conference in the playoffs.
Ultimately it is about great teams, and the Pac-12 hasn't had any dynasty team since Pete Carroll left USC. The two dynasty basketball teams, UCLA and AZ, have hit the skids lately too.
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Jan 9, 2019 14:43:00 GMT -5
A one billion dollar endowment is not very much for a major university. Stanford's is actually over $25 billion. Reading comprehension, O baby bear? My point was re: the AD. PS: " over 1 Billion can = $25B. You can always tell a Stanford man...but, you can't tell him much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2019 14:49:03 GMT -5
Few points: 1) Scott MUST have a 'sweetheart" arrangement ('scratch my back...") w/ the presidents-chancellors; 2) They Still Are making $, just not as much as others; 3) He WILL be canned!
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jan 9, 2019 15:38:10 GMT -5
The focus so far seems to be on Larry Scott and the TV end of things, but doesn't this start with getting student to attend games and care about the teams? So when they graduate they turn on the TV or even come back for a game?
A few people have suggested that Stanford and USC are immune... their basketball attendance last season was around 4100 per game, roughly the same as Northern Kentucky and Montana. Maybe it's the traffic, or that there are better things to do, which are the reasons we here every year when we talk about NCAA volleyball tournament attendance out west. There are some beautiful schools, and no matter how bad it gets, I imagine there will always be some top athletes who dream of going to school in California, but I would imagine to Pac 12 schools want to continue to be what they have been - "The Conference of Champions" - and without the revenue or at least the passion, I'm not sure why champions are going to continue to go to the Pac 12, in the volumes they have so far.
It's hard to imagine the Pac 12 receding behind "mid-major" conferences but on the other hand, what is going to change their momentum? The SEC and Big 10 will have a 10 year head start on building and staffing - as was pointed out last week, it took Lewis and Clark 31 people to explore the west, but Nick Saban needed 36 coaches to get there. I'm having trouble seeing how the Pac 12 will keep up.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 9, 2019 17:15:10 GMT -5
The focus so far seems to be on Larry Scott and the TV end of things, but doesn't this start with getting student to attend games and care about the teams? So when they graduate they turn on the TV or even come back for a game? A few people have suggested that Stanford and USC are immune... their basketball attendance last season was around 4100 per game, roughly the same as Northern Kentucky and Montana. Maybe it's the traffic, or that there are better things to do, which are the reasons we here every year when we talk about NCAA volleyball tournament attendance out west. There are some beautiful schools, and no matter how bad it gets, I imagine there will always be some top athletes who dream of going to school in California, but I would imagine to Pac 12 schools want to continue to be what they have been - "The Conference of Champions" - and without the revenue or at least the passion, I'm not sure why champions are going to continue to go to the Pac 12, in the volumes they have so far. It's hard to imagine the Pac 12 receding behind "mid-major" conferences but on the other hand, what is going to change their momentum? The SEC and Big 10 will have a 10 year head start on building and staffing - as was pointed out last week, it took Lewis and Clark 31 people to explore the west, but Nick Saban needed 36 coaches to get there. I'm having trouble seeing how the Pac 12 will keep up. As a taxpayer in Washington, I care a lot more whether UW and WSU serve their intended roles as educational institutions than I do about their sports programs.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Jan 9, 2019 20:01:11 GMT -5
That’s short term. Look a little further. If you don’t have success in football or basketball, you don’t have money. You don’t have money, all sports are affected. I don’t think that’s true. Stanford’s Athletic Department is Endowed, and most of the coach’s positions and scholarships have specific Endowments. Even if their Football or Basketball tank (it already has), I don’t see I’d effecting the overall health of the Athletic department. In fact, you could argue that those “revenue” sports drain money away from more successful sports that they could be focusing on (like they did in the 90s). Again, that’s ONE school. We’re talking about the conference as a whole aren’t we? Isn’t this about the PAC 12 and not the financial well-being of USC and Stanford?
|
|
|
Post by fetchin on Jan 11, 2019 11:29:49 GMT -5
I don't understand the infatuation the Presidents/Chancellors of the Pac 12 have for Larry Scott. He's been mediocre at best, and smarmy af. That last sentence, you describe yourself very well.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jan 11, 2019 12:05:29 GMT -5
A few people have suggested that Stanford and USC are immune... They are both immune along with Phil Knight's Oregon.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Jan 11, 2019 12:07:36 GMT -5
I don’t think that’s true. Stanford’s Athletic Department is Endowed, and most of the coach’s positions and scholarships have specific Endowments. Even if their Football or Basketball tank (it already has), I don’t see I’d effecting the overall health of the Athletic department. In fact, you could argue that those “revenue” sports drain money away from more successful sports that they could be focusing on (like they did in the 90s). Again, that’s ONE school. We’re talking about the conference as a whole aren’t we? Isn’t this about the PAC 12 and not the financial well-being of USC and Stanford? USC, Stanford and Oregon are above the fray in all of this. Cal and Washington St are at the other end of the spectrum who need a viable Pac-12 network and its monies to stay solvent.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jan 11, 2019 12:36:13 GMT -5
I don't understand the infatuation the Presidents/Chancellors of the Pac 12 have for Larry Scott. He's been mediocre at best, and smarmy af. That last sentence, you describe yourself very well. smarm·y /ˈsmärmē adjectiveINFORMAL ingratiating and wheedling in a way that is perceived as insincere or excessive. "a smarmy, unctuous reply"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2019 12:40:11 GMT -5
Few points: 1) Scott MUST have a 'sweetheart" arrangement ('scratch my back...") w/ the presidents-chancellors; 2) They Still Are making $, just not as much as others; 3) He WILL be canned! Been following this story for a LONG time: with insights from Jon Wilner of The Mercury News ("Pac-12 Hotline"). Conference is Not "dangling at the edge of a precipice": at All. It IS Way Behind other conferences, though, in bonanza-like incoming revenues! This Scott dude is proving to be Rather inept. Private universities aside, the PAC can, plus SHOULD, do better. When they moved their offices from Walnut Creek to San Fran, they were attempting to "try to hit the 'big time'"! NOT Quite Yet. So, can his a$$, and bring in some hot-shot, innovative entrepreneur/professional who can "think outside (Scott's) proverbial 'box'". Privatize 10% of the ENTIRE conference? Uhmmm, NO.
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Jan 11, 2019 14:08:48 GMT -5
The focus so far seems to be on Larry Scott and the TV end of things, but doesn't this start with getting student to attend games and care about the teams? So when they graduate they turn on the TV or even come back for a game? A few people have suggested that Stanford and USC are immune... their basketball attendance last season was around 4100 per game, roughly the same as Northern Kentucky and Montana. Maybe it's the traffic, or that there are better things to do, which are the reasons we here every year when we talk about NCAA volleyball tournament attendance out west. There are some beautiful schools, and no matter how bad it gets, I imagine there will always be some top athletes who dream of going to school in California, but I would imagine to Pac 12 schools want to continue to be what they have been - "The Conference of Champions" - and without the revenue or at least the passion, I'm not sure why champions are going to continue to go to the Pac 12, in the volumes they have so far. It's hard to imagine the Pac 12 receding behind "mid-major" conferences but on the other hand, what is going to change their momentum? The SEC and Big 10 will have a 10 year head start on building and staffing - as was pointed out last week, it took Lewis and Clark 31 people to explore the west, but Nick Saban needed 36 coaches to get there. I'm having trouble seeing how the Pac 12 will keep up. As a taxpayer in Washington, I care a lot more whether UW and WSU serve their intended roles as educational institutions than I do about their sports programs. Washington's athletic department is completely self-supporting. They receive no student or state funds, nor any tuition waivers (except for a few leftover from the early Title IX days). WSU is less fortunate and is projecting an $85 mil deficit link in the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on Jan 14, 2019 16:43:16 GMT -5
The first paragraph says not the Pac 12 but Pac-12 NewCo.
|
|