PAC-10 EXPANSION: Texas, Big 12 blame game
The Pac-10 media day gave Larry Scott the opportunity to air out what exactly happened in the fast-paced negotiations to create the first super conference. From New York to Pasadena, he took the chance to tell his side of the story and take us behind the scenes of those crazy days in June.
We've made our own conjectures about what happened during conference expansion before, but allowing Larry Scott to share his grievances and get the last word is a fitting end to the saga.
Dennis Dodd was able to sit down with Scott at the Rose Bowl today to get his side of the story. The quotes contained here come from Dodd's article.
The first move in expansion didn't come from the Pac-10, it came from the Big Ten and their effort to create a superconference.
The Big Ten announced Dec. 15 that it was exploring expansion. That made it easier, he said, for him to attempt a mega move ahead of the Big Ten. For a few days, it seemed Scott had actually leapt over the Big Ten's Jim Delany in terms of leverage.
It was clear at the time -- and Scott confirmed -- that expansion into Texas wasn't a snap decision, it was months in the making.
"We weren't trying to publicize what we were doing," Scott said. "We were going about it for four months quietly behind the scenes. It's really Texas [that] leaked the plan as they were going into those Big 12 meetings in Kansas City, I think, hoping to keep Nebraska, hoping to keep the Big 12 together."
Scott had been in contact with Texas for quite some time, quietly working to secure the exodus of six Big 12 teams. It appeared to be working, all under the cover of silence. Texas, on the other hand, had different plans. After working with Scott for months, the Longhorns began leaking information to the media (Chip Brown specifically), knowing full well that Nebraska was about to leave and cripple the Big 12 in the process.
When an oath of loyalty from the Big 12 members was rejected -- by Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado -- the Big 12 was all but done. The efforts of Texas to save the conference had failed, but Texas knew they had secured a landing spot in the Pac-10 all along. They were playing the game from both sides.
"We wanted to get Colorado first," Scott added. "We knew there were some political efforts in the state of Texas that might derail it. Time was of the essence. In 24 hours it went from happening to not happening. In hindsight with a few months to reflect, fundamentally it was Texas political issues that derailed it."
It may have seemed odd that Colorado was extended an invitation first, but the move was calculated and done with a clear purpose by Scott. The Pac-10 never wanted Baylor, and inviting Colorado was an attempt to keep the Texas legislature from forcing Baylor on the conference.
When asked by about what killed the deal, Scott made it clear he felt the Texas legislature ended the possibility of expansion into Texas.The deal was not, as reported at the time, struck down because Texas would've been prevented from starting their own TV network.
It has been reported that Texas was dissatisfied that it may not have been able to launch its own network if it joined the Pac-10. Scott said that issue was overblown and that something could have been worked out.
"At the end of the day I don't think it wouldn't have happened over a deal point, let's put it that way," he said. "There were bigger issues."
Would inviting Baylor over Colorado have saved the Pac-16? Maybe, but Baylor wasn't ever in the Pac-10's plans and making that kind of a concession wasn't an option. Immediately bending to the will of the Texas legislature would've gotten the conference off to a terrible start and perhaps lead to the same problems the Big 12 is currently facing.
With the Pac-16 dead, some thought the decision to add Utah and Colorado to form the Pac-12 may have been hasty and not thought out as well as it should have been. Scott says that wasn't the case; The conference had been exploring expansion to 12 all along.
"Candidly, we were working on 12-team models," Scott said. "It wasn't until the Big Ten and Jim [Delany] started talking about maybe more, 16, that all this chatter over the airwaves started what-if scenarios.
At the end of the day, Scott's vision of a superconference is over. He doesn't expect it to be brought up in the near future after the whirlwind few weeks in June. Through the process, Scott gained some on the job training in the behind the scene politics of college athletics. If the opportunity does arise again -- say when a certain Big 12 team doesn't get the money they were promised -- expect Scott to be right at the doorstep, ready to pounce. The experience he gained this time around may prove invaluable.
For more from Larry Scott, see Darren Rovell's interview.
0 recs |
82 comments
|
Comments
I just don't want him to alienate Texas
To the point where it can’t happen in the future.
But part of this may be a PR game on Scott’s part. Power brokers and fans in the Big XII South – even Bob Stoops – seemed to be excited about the idea of being in a superconference. If they can make the public angry at the Texas legislature for blocking it, things might still gain traction in the next couple years.
The sad thing is that one school could have made this all a reality by listening to its regents and its fans: Texas A&M. If they bolted for the SEC, Texas would’ve left for the Pac, and brought Oklahoma, Ok State and Tech with them.
Still, it’s unfair to downplay the role UT had in this. By placing the entire conference on the chopping block they basically leveraged their way to draining money from the current Big XII North. And the north was powerless to stop it, since the alternative was a Mountain West superconference (super being relative).Texas got to keep the status quo and remain the top dog in conference, a way of having their cake and eating it too.
Texas – the University of, and the legislature, are both responsible. But the dream is still alive. In the end A&M is the one piece of the jenga tower that could topple the whole thing.
Nebraska did a smart thing by getting the heck out of there.
Meh
If there’s money to be had, Texas will chase it. Scott is the one who has every right to be pissed, but he understands it’s just business … and that business will likely bring them together again.
You really don't want Texas
If this mess has shown anything it’s that Texas will do anything short of murder to advance itself, even if it means destroying a conference. I was shocked that Texas didn’t make the move considering what’s happening to USC. It seemed like a prime opportunity to jump right in and take over a new conference. Once Texas gets it’s foot in the door, it’s over. I’m sure Larry Scott thought he could control them, but that’s what the Big 8 thought too and look what happened. Nebraska bolted, Oklahoma and oSu are wearing the kiddie leashes (no matter how adamantly Oklahoma tries to claim otherwise) and the remnants of the Big 8 have been beaten into submission.
Also, from the WTF department
The league unveiled its new logo sporting mountains, certainly in reference to the addition of Utah and Colorado
REPEAT: Dennis Dodd of CBS reports there are no mountains in Washington, Oregon and Northern California.
Also, some people out there in our nation don’t have maps, and our education everywhere in places like South Africa and the Iraq, like such as.
by Grady Clapp on Jul 29, 2010 8:48 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
that chick
was on the last season of Amazing Race.
You all should really listen to Scott on Scott Van Pelt's ESPN Radio show yesterday
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/show/_/showId/scottvanpelt2009/postId/5417654/show-in-review
The pertinent part to this conversation is that Scott feels like college athletics leave a bleep-ton of money on the table because the schools and conferences are so fractured. Rather than leveraging against each other, they should be working together — which is why he thinks a move to superconferences is inevitable. And when it happens, he says the Pac-10 will be ready.
Really good interview.
He knows his stuff
I think part of the problem with collegiate athletics is the guys in charge are the same old guard. Scott comes in with no NCAA experience — but a ton of marketing and TV experience — and brings some different approaches to the conference. A refreshing change.
I'm not buying it
The Texas Legislature was not even in session. It meets every two years, and the capitol was quiet. There was no debate or interference by the State of Texas. In fact, Gov. Perry said that the state was staying out of it. There were in fact some politicos giving quotes to the media and such, but NO action was taken by the state. The reason it fell apart is because Dan Beebe was able to put together an attractive enough deal to keep UT happy. It kept USC, CAL, ect. from playing/recruiting the state. UT does not give up their recruiting grounds easily. End the end, surprisingly, Dan Beebe outmaneuvered Scott and Larry Scott doesn’t like it.
by KerrTX on Jul 29, 2010 9:44 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Totally unnecessary for a legislature to be in session to exert influence
Just in case you were wondering.
We’ll see just how well Beebe outmaneuvered Scott when the Big 12 falls apart in a year or two.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 29, 2010 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Also.....
There is still a lot of info unknown, but I’d like to ask Larry Scott if this is true: According to UT, the invitation to UT, A&M, TT, OU and OSU was a package deal. According to Chip Brown as well as Aggie regents, the Aggies had no intention of going to the PAC 10. If they were going anywhere, it was to the SEC therefore making it impossible for the other 4 schools to accept the invitation. From the information coming out here in Texas, it was Texas A&M that caused the deal to fall apart. Of course, we may never know the whole story. But, IMO, the PAC 10 shot themselves in the foot when they extended the invite to Colorado, and Colorado accepted so soon. That allowed Beebe to disperse between 10 teams what would have been divided between 12, bringing the per school average up to what other conferences were paying out, and what the PAC was promising.
by KerrTX on Jul 29, 2010 9:56 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
A promise, it should be noted
That was given based on nothing more than verbal promises from television networks desperate to keep from losing their leverage.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 29, 2010 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Yup, we shall see
if Beebe is able to get the deal done that he promised. I gotta’ wonder if it is possible with only 10 teams and Nebraska out of the mix.
The Big 12 is on borrowed time.
Check the link at the end
A&M is already looking shaky.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 29, 2010 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions
No doubt
There is still a lot to be decided about the future of the Big 12. It is still reeling from being henpecked from the PAC and BIG 10. If Beebe is able to deliver on his promises, I believe it will survive. A lot of it will depend on the TV contracts. Apparently ABC/ESPN gave him assurances for fear of losing the Texas/Oklahoma market to Fox Sports had the mass exodus to the PAC occurred. If, in fact, they are able to deliver $20M per, then it will be fine. Granted, that is a big if though.
by KerrTX on Jul 29, 2010 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Also remember
Even if Beebe is able to deliver on his promises, those promises will really only satisfy three of the 10 teams left. At some point, the seven “have-nots” will tire of perpetually losing ground to Texas, Oklahoma and A&M.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 29, 2010 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions
There is no doubt
The uneven distribution has always been a sticking point. I think it would be a few years down the road before that comes up again though. The have-nots, according to Beebe, will still be bringing in $14M-$18M, which is double what they were getting. So, for a few years, they will be happy with that. But, there will come a time when it starts getting under their skin again.
by KerrTX on Jul 29, 2010 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The bottom 4 or 5 won’t, because they were facing purgatory. Now they get 20 mil. Its the few in the middle like Texas Tech that are frustrated.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
The bottom isn't getting $20 million apiece
They’re getting more like $14 million to $17 million. Just because they were facing purgatory doesn’t mean they will be. Like I said before, I think this arrangement just buys everyone more time to figure out an exit strategy.
Teams like Iowa State and Kansas State have no exit strategy. And 14 million to 17 million is 14 million to 17 million better than they could do anywhere else.
The team that is potentially the angriest in all of this is Kansas, whose basketball tradition appears to mean jack and also shit. But they also were facing purgatory. So, they’ll kiss Texas’ ring and bow their head.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
You're probably right.
But it’s only going to take two of the middle teams deciding they can do better elsewhere to blow the whole thing up.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 31, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, Kansas was the eye opener.
And them not having a home made it clear that football drives the bus.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 31, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed
True, however the PAC was in the same position. Neither conference had a deal set in place to guarantee much of anything.
by KerrTX on Jul 29, 2010 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is true
But the Pac-10’s proposal was based on months and months of research. The Big 12’s was based on about 48 hours of hastily thrown together desperation.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 29, 2010 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Not to mention the fact that their "proposal" is based on fundamental inequity
Something that can’t possibly survive longterm.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 29, 2010 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Inviting Colorado wasn't a problem
As I pointed out, waiting around and allowing Baylor to try to elbow their way in wouldn’t have been in his best interest.
It was a package deal. If A&M back out, that was their own problem. The Big 12 would’ve fell, Texas would be in the Pac-10, and A&M would be replaced.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 29, 2010 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions
This is where it fell apart
Baylor would not have been able to elbow their way in. I personally believe that had the invitations been issued separately, then this would be a done deal today. A&M would be in the SEC, but the PAC could have gotten Kansas or somebody else. If it is true it was a package deal, I believe that was Scotts biggest miscalculation.
by KerrTX on Jul 29, 2010 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Colorado would have had nothing to do with that
Since the whole plan was CU and the 5 from the Big 12 South. The door was wide open for A&M to go to the SEC, even with the way schools were invitied. Why, then, did they not?
by Brian Floyd on Jul 29, 2010 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions
as I understand it
UT, OU, TT, and OSU could not accept the invitation without A&M. It was Colorado separately and those 5 as a package. This allowed enough time to pass for other forces to intervene.
by KerrTX on Jul 29, 2010 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't believe that's the case
Texas was the big fish. They would have taken just about anyone as that fifth team if the Longhorns had come.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 29, 2010 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
That's why I said I would like to ask Larry Scott...
because when the initial blame game started here, that was the word put out by UT. They stated that they could not accept the invitation without A&M because it require all 5 of them to move together.
by KerrTX on Jul 29, 2010 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I wouldn't buy what UT was selling, personally.
They spun this thing the whole way and controlled the media. Of course they would say that, it shines them in the best light.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 29, 2010 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions
True dat!
UT has masterfully worked all sides against each other to their own benefit. Again. They have a history of doing that. As exciting as the PAC 16 would have been, I’m sure there are some people relieved that they won’t have to be dealing with UT.
True
And I understand they worked all sides and garnered the best deal for them. Doesn’t mean I like it, but I completely get it. They protected their interests and won in the end.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 29, 2010 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions
TX did what it had to do..and yes they protected their interests… and got raked over the coals for doing so… but you dont see the other teams getting as much blame .. as TX is… it was not just their decision.. it was a 5 school one and even more that if you count the other schools that did bolt…so even out the blame.. The Texas Legislature was not even in session.. and they are getting blamed for interfering …EACH school has to look out for its self..FIRST and anyone one else second
That was a misconception
A&M wasn’t the sticking point. In fact, Scott was about to get on a plane to KU and invite them. The flightplan was filed.
A&M didn’t have the stones to jump to the SEC by themselves and bent to the will of Texas. That’s what ended up killing it all.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 29, 2010 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
And this is where you get the story lines up with Scott's about legislature
We know A&M wanted to go to the SEC. Their fans and school wanted to go, yet they didn’t. It’s certainly possible to believe Scott’s idea that the legislature wanted the schools to stick together.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 29, 2010 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions
It's certainly possible
I’m not saying 100% that’s not what happened, I’m just passing along what the word is around here. There were apparently forces outside of Texas and the Big 12 that did not want this to happen. Nobody will say what those forces were, but I sure would like to know.
We wrote extensively about that.
Give me a minute to dig up the links.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 29, 2010 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Here you go
http://www.cougcenter.com/2010/6/14/1518134/pac-10-expansion-espn-fox-insert
http://www.cougcenter.com/2010/6/14/1518258/pac-10-expansion-larry-scott-never
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 29, 2010 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks!
I appreciate those links. No truer statement has ever been printed as this one: The rest of the schools agree to sit at a disadvantage because they’re just happy as hell not to be left out in the cold.
by KerrTX on Jul 29, 2010 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Definitely
The three that were paid off were for a reason
The other schools gave up their buyout money and made concessions because they really did have nowhere to go. Nobody was jumping to take them, so if the Big 12 dropped, they were dead.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 29, 2010 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I think all Beebe's deal does is buy everyone more time to sort things out
Of course, Beebe believes it’s more time to figure out a way to actually make the Big 12 profitable. Everyone else believes it’s more time to position themselves for when the conference blows up.
Texas will be in a great spot with their network already in hand when the Big 12 dissolves.
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 29, 2010 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Texas will always be in a great spot.
As a Baylor alum, I certainly they start working on positioning themselves for when it happens. Particularly winning some football games! UT will never have to worry. They are the darling of NCAA football
Oklahoma was also invited to the SEC
I don’t think it changed anything, but Oklahoma was also invited to the SEC with A&M. They never intended to go because of OSU, but how was that kept so quiet?
Well, who was controlling the media?
Rarely a peep was said about OSU and OU because everything was coming from inside Texas.
by Brian Floyd on Jul 29, 2010 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Good point
There really was nothing coming out of Oklahoma now that I think about it. Oklahoma knew they were gonna be ok no matter what, and OSU knew they would be too because they would go with OU.
On a seperate note
I really like the site you guys have set up here. It’s really nice not having to refresh to see the most recent comments. Also, it’s cool that you guys are able to have rational, intelligent conversations without becoming mean spirited and hateful.
Thanks!
We work hard at it. (The conversation, not the site – SB Nation takes care of the technical stuff!)
by Jeff Nusser on Jul 29, 2010 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Gotta hit the hay
but thanks for the convo. I’ll check back to see what’s happening in CougNation. Have a good night.
It is refreshing
to have someone come in here (CougCenter) and have an intelligent conversation and not get offended. I feel like you must have read the mission statement and CougCenter rules before you joined. This site is like no other when it comes to good writing and respectful comments. If something doesn’t sound respectful it is most likely satire. You are one level headed Baylor Bear from Texas. I kind of felt bad for Baylor in all this expansion talk, because I know it is a small religious school that may not fit the Pac10 (Pac16) mold, but Baylor is competitive for is size and is tough competition. I have a lot of respect for Baylor, but they probably would have been left out in the cold if the Pac16 happened. Unless people viewed them as ying and Stanford as yang, since they are both private institutions with an enrollment around 15k.
"They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time." - Brian Fantana
But will the Pac ever accept a religous institution?
Come to think of it, are there any other BCS leagues w/o a religious school?
Boston College
"They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time." - Brian Fantana
Vandy is not religious anymore.
It started off with an affiliation but broke off a long time ago.
CougCenter WSU's second main blog
by Craig Powers on Jul 30, 2010 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions
USC started as a religous school.
"They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time." - Brian Fantana
(SP) religious.
"They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time." - Brian Fantana
Sorry, I miss read your comment
I thought you said, are there any other BCS conferences with religious schools?
"They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time." - Brian Fantana
I think the religious part is over played
In my opinion it was POLITICS, not religion that made the decision. When you stick your fingers in California laws it is politics, NOT religion.
Remember, the PAC 10 requires a unanimous vote. If just one school was upset enough to say no, then BYU was out. Cough, Berkeley, cough.
People are politically correct and say it is a culture fit. Really I think that certain officials didn’t want to associate themselves with a school that openly promotes discrimination.
Thank you. I feel like I bring the most intelligent Washington State football discussion around, so I’ll take most of the credit!
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
none of us are intelligent, save nusser
you may win by default.
Chip Brown
I love how in Dodd’s article Chip Brown vehemently denies that Mack Brown or DeLoss Dodds were his sources. Well, maybe that’s technically true, but the point Scott made – that Brown’s sources were people deep within the Texas AD – is certainly true. And I wouldn’t expect Brown to admit it either, because why would he rat out the people that have made him a household name in the span of just a few weeks?
Just like when a coach says, "No, I have not been contacted by XXXX University."
Of course the AD him/herself didn’t call you. But someone very close to them did …
Always a third party
There was probably a runner — high up in the athletic department — feeding information.
Remember when this first broke?
We all seemed skeptical that a guy in Texas with no Pac-10 sources was breaking this. Looking back it should’ve been obvious who was feeding the information and why they were.
It took us a few days to catch on
Hindsights 20/20 but as soon as more information started flowing it was a hit yourself in the head moment.
As an aside
Hard to believe that was just on June 3. Less than two months ago. Seems like a lifetime.
Gasp
"Larry Scott is living in a fantasy world if he thinks DeLoss Dodds or Mack Brown leaked information to me," said Chip Brown of Orangebloods.com
Terrible denial. Scott never said Dodds or Brown was leaking information, he said it was coming from Texas and only a small number of people knew.

by 













