|
|
Post by beavadelic on Mar 16, 2018 7:26:45 GMT -8
After a pathetic 1-8 showing in the bowls in football, and now 0-3 in the Big Dance (it’s possible that not a single team deserved to be in the 68 team field given who we lost to in those games), our conference is the laughingstock of Power 5 athletics right now. Bill Walton may even have to bail on his “conference of champions” schtick (not likely)
I hope that baseball and women’s hoops - two sports in which the upper tier teams are strong nationally - and maybe softball brings some semblance of honor back to the PAC. Wrestling and gymnastics are good, and water sports are dominated by west coast programs, but those sports are “niche sports” and don’t do much to bolster the perception of the conference to the majority of sports fans. Unfortunately, football is the money-maker and hoops generates revenue and gets attention.
I place a lot of responsibility on Larry Scott and the general leadership in terms of focus of emphasis of many school presidents, etc. of the PAC 12. The uninspired bowl tie-ins and failed network that has hurt us financially are on him and them. Geographically, we operate at a disadvantage in terms of viewership, but we have California, which has enough gifted athletes to easily make our teams relevant on a national level in every sport, even if some national programs do swoop in and grab some of the best. I think that we’re in for more of this until either Scott and Co. get enlightened and take appropriate action to give us a competitive opportunity, or he is ousted and somebody with vision and tenacity takes over.
This is embarrassing, especially when our Beavs were unquestionably the worst team in the worst conference in football, and one of the bottom-tier teams in undoubtedly the worst conference in college hoops. Like it or not, the bulk of sports fans in America don’t care about anything beyond the “Big 2”.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Mar 16, 2018 7:41:16 GMT -8
And in 2016-17 the Pac-12 had a Final Four men's and women's team, a Final Four baseball team, a football playoff semifinalist and two Super Six gymnastics teams. These things are cyclical.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Mar 16, 2018 9:07:42 GMT -8
And in 2016-17 the Pac-12 had a Final Four men's and women's team, a Final Four baseball team, a football playoff semifinalist and two Super Six gymnastics teams. These things are cyclical. I’m thinking more of the overall conference depth and strength. When I heard that the last NCAA championship in hoops for our conference was 1998, and in football our last champion (since vacated by USC due to the Reggie Bush sanctions) was a dozen years ago) even the strength of the top end is disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 16, 2018 12:11:26 GMT -8
And in 2016-17 the Pac-12 had a Final Four men's and women's team, a Final Four baseball team, a football playoff semifinalist and two Super Six gymnastics teams. These things are cyclical. I’m thinking more of the overall conference depth and strength. When I heard that the last NCAA championship in hoops for our conference was 1998, and in football our last champion (since vacated by USC due to the Reggie Bush sanctions) was a dozen years ago) even the strength of the top end is disappointing. And that is directly the fault of the commish? Lol Fault falls on many many heads... but he doesn't have final say on anything Pac12, he doesn't coach, recruit, hire coaches, make the schedules, pick the tourney or bowl participants. Laying it on one man's feet is ridiculous... |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Mar 16, 2018 13:21:47 GMT -8
And in 2016-17 the Pac-12 had a Final Four men's and women's team, a Final Four baseball team, a football playoff semifinalist and two Super Six gymnastics teams. These things are cyclical. I’m thinking more of the overall conference depth and strength. When I heard that the last NCAA championship in hoops for our conference was 1998, and in football our last champion (since vacated by USC due to the Reggie Bush sanctions) was a dozen years ago) even the strength of the top end is disappointing. The Pac-12's last championship in basketball was by Arizona in 1997, but the conference placed a team in the final in 2001 and 2006. Current conference member Utah was in a final in 1998. Since 1997, the Big 12 similarly only has one national championship (Kansas in 2008) and two other finals appearance (Kansas in 2003 and 2012). If you stretch back to 1995, the Pac-12 has an additional championship. The Big 12's previous top two finish was in 1991 (Kansas again). In football, USC won a national championship in 2004. That was subsequently vacated for a BS reason. The Pac-12's previous national championship was in 2003 (USC). Since 2004, the Pac-12 has finished second three times (2005, 2010, and 2014). Since 2004, the Big 12 has one national championship (Texas in 2005) and three national championship game entrants (Oklahoma in 2004 and 2008 and Texas in 2009). Since 2003, the Big Ten has one national championship (Ohio State in 2014) and two national championship game entrants (Ohio State in 2006 and 2007). The ACC only has three national championship game entrants since 2000 (Florida State in 2013 and Clemson in 2015 and 2016). |
|
|
|
Post by bdudbeaver on Mar 17, 2018 11:22:42 GMT -8
Canzano blames Larry Scott. I think it is due to the easy access to marijuana in the west. Certainly affected my performance and motivation at times during my college years. Re-watch the Star Trek episode "This Side of Paradise". When was the last time you saw a fight in a Pac-12 basketball game???
|
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Mar 17, 2018 11:53:28 GMT -8
Canzano blames Larry Scott. I think it is due to the easy access to marijuana in the west. Certainly affected my performance and motivation at times during my college years. Re-watch the Star Trek episode "This Side of Paradise". When was the last time you saw a fight in a Pac-12 basketball game??? I’m fairly certain your tongue was firmly in your cheek....’cuz I guarantee you they’re toking in Carolina, Florida, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Mar 17, 2018 13:15:18 GMT -8
Pro-rate it for the number of fans in the stands for Pac-12 football and basketball relative to the other P5 conferences, and it averages out about right. College sports just are not as big a deal here as in the south and midwest. People in Eugene think that Autzen is such a big deal - but in the SEC the only stadium that size is at Vanderbilt. Attendance at Pauley Pavilion would put UCLA in the bottom half of every major conference and below a lot of mid-major teams. Collectively, we fans don't show up for games . . . so why should we expect our teams to win championships?
|
|
|
|
Post by beavadelic on Mar 18, 2018 21:18:40 GMT -8
I’m thinking more of the overall conference depth and strength. When I heard that the last NCAA championship in hoops for our conference was 1998, and in football our last champion (since vacated by USC due to the Reggie Bush sanctions) was a dozen years ago) even the strength of the top end is disappointing. And that is directly the fault of the commish? Lol Fault falls on many many heads... but he doesn't have final say on anything Pac12, he doesn't coach, recruit, hire coaches, make the schedules, pick the tourney or bowl participants. Laying it on one man's feet is ridiculous... What if I just laid it AT his feet? |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 18, 2018 21:29:57 GMT -8
And that is directly the fault of the commish? Lol Fault falls on many many heads... but he doesn't have final say on anything Pac12, he doesn't coach, recruit, hire coaches, make the schedules, pick the tourney or bowl participants. Laying it on one man's feet is ridiculous... What if I just laid it AT his feet? Then he could lay it at the feet of the 12 university presidents that make the final call on the big ticket issues. |
|
|
|
Post by obf on Mar 19, 2018 15:34:29 GMT -8
I’m thinking more of the overall conference depth and strength. When I heard that the last NCAA championship in hoops for our conference was 1998, and in football our last champion (since vacated by USC due to the Reggie Bush sanctions) was a dozen years ago) even the strength of the top end is disappointing. And that is directly the fault of the commish? Lol Fault falls on many many heads... but he doesn't have final say on anything Pac12, he doesn't coach, recruit, hire coaches, make the schedules, pick the tourney or bowl participants. Laying it on one man's feet is ridiculous... Sure there are lots of reasons for the "demise" of the conference (I question the direness of the conferences "death", but clearly we are struggling). The reasons are subtle and nuanced and have many causes, secondary causes, and multiplying factors. However, in general, when large organizations fail, or underperform the head man gets the blame, that's just how it is. Your team sucks? The head coach gets fired. The company is struggling? The CEO gets axed (Yayyyy golden parachute). Your country is in turmoil? The President is going to get lambasted and we are going to try and impeach him. This is a concept I have seen you cite plenty of times on this forum when ascribing blame to a head coach. Sure the presidents had to OK a bunch of the big decisions, but ultimately it DOES fall onto Scott. And while the presidents voted on many things it was up to Scott to actually implement the decisions... One in particular, the pac-12 network, is NOT a bad idea, and could have and still could work out brilliantly. But, the original projections of it's worth and its implementation has been abysmal. Maybe you can blame one of Scotts underlings for this, but again, it all comes down to him... In a competition where the margin is razor thin, it DOES make a huge difference that the Pac-12 is playing with one arm behind it's back. The fact that the Pac-12 has been negotiating with Direct TV for SIX years and has yet to get a deal in place is unfathomable. The penny wise, pound foolish dickering with Direct TV reminds me SO MUCH of our very own BDC making smart decisions for the moment, but very poor decisions for the future. There is almost NO DEAL POSSIBLE with Direct TV that is as bad as NO DEAL AT ALL! Literally, six years of giving them the Pac-12 channel FOR FREE would have been better than the last six years. The Pac-12 v. Direct TV debacle is just one example of the Pac-12 bumblings over the last few years. TL;DR -- If Larry Scott was the head coach of a football team he would have been fired long ago, Not having a deal in place with the biggest pay tv provider in the country for 6 months would have been indefensible, let alone six years, smh |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 19, 2018 19:03:23 GMT -8
And that is directly the fault of the commish? Lol Fault falls on many many heads... but he doesn't have final say on anything Pac12, he doesn't coach, recruit, hire coaches, make the schedules, pick the tourney or bowl participants. Laying it on one man's feet is ridiculous... Sure there are lots of reasons for the "demise" of the conference (I question the direness of the conferences "death", but clearly we are struggling). The reasons are subtle and nuanced and have many causes, secondary causes, and multiplying factors. However, in general, when large organizations fail, or underperform the head man gets the blame, that's just how it is. Your team sucks? The head coach gets fired. The company is struggling? The CEO gets axed (Yayyyy golden parachute). Your country is in turmoil? The President is going to get lambasted and we are going to try and impeach him. This is a concept I have seen you cite plenty of times on this forum when ascribing blame to a head coach. Sure the presidents had to OK a bunch of the big decisions, but ultimately it DOES fall onto Scott. And while the presidents voted on many things it was up to Scott to actually implement the decisions... One in particular, the pac-12 network, is NOT a bad idea, and could have and still could work out brilliantly. But, the original projections of it's worth and its implementation has been abysmal. Maybe you can blame one of Scotts underlings for this, but again, it all comes down to him... In a competition where the margin is razor thin, it DOES make a huge difference that the Pac-12 is playing with one arm behind it's back. The fact that the Pac-12 has been negotiating with Direct TV for SIX years and has yet to get a deal in place is unfathomable. The penny wise, pound foolish dickering with Direct TV reminds me SO MUCH of our very own BDC making smart decisions for the moment, but very poor decisions for the future. There is almost NO DEAL POSSIBLE with Direct TV that is as bad as NO DEAL AT ALL! Literally, six years of giving them the Pac-12 channel FOR FREE would have been better than the last six years. The Pac-12 v. Direct TV debacle is just one example of the Pac-12 bumblings over the last few years. TL;DR -- If Larry Scott was the head coach of a football team he would have been fired long ago, Not having a deal in place with the biggest pay tv provider in the country for 6 months would have been indefensible, let alone six years, smh Ya... cuz the analogy of a conference commissioner and head football coach is so appropriate. Lol The TV deal... if you care to research was a very two sided affair and several counters were dismissed by the presidents. So, ya... "blaming a HC" who is the chief executive and doesn't run teaching techs or coaching decisions by a group of college presidents. But, you go with whatever you want. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Mar 19, 2018 20:42:46 GMT -8
Sure there are lots of reasons for the "demise" of the conference (I question the direness of the conferences "death", but clearly we are struggling). The reasons are subtle and nuanced and have many causes, secondary causes, and multiplying factors. However, in general, when large organizations fail, or underperform the head man gets the blame, that's just how it is. Your team sucks? The head coach gets fired. The company is struggling? The CEO gets axed (Yayyyy golden parachute). Your country is in turmoil? The President is going to get lambasted and we are going to try and impeach him. This is a concept I have seen you cite plenty of times on this forum when ascribing blame to a head coach. Sure the presidents had to OK a bunch of the big decisions, but ultimately it DOES fall onto Scott. And while the presidents voted on many things it was up to Scott to actually implement the decisions... One in particular, the pac-12 network, is NOT a bad idea, and could have and still could work out brilliantly. But, the original projections of it's worth and its implementation has been abysmal. Maybe you can blame one of Scotts underlings for this, but again, it all comes down to him... In a competition where the margin is razor thin, it DOES make a huge difference that the Pac-12 is playing with one arm behind it's back. The fact that the Pac-12 has been negotiating with Direct TV for SIX years and has yet to get a deal in place is unfathomable. The penny wise, pound foolish dickering with Direct TV reminds me SO MUCH of our very own BDC making smart decisions for the moment, but very poor decisions for the future. There is almost NO DEAL POSSIBLE with Direct TV that is as bad as NO DEAL AT ALL! Literally, six years of giving them the Pac-12 channel FOR FREE would have been better than the last six years. The Pac-12 v. Direct TV debacle is just one example of the Pac-12 bumblings over the last few years. TL;DR -- If Larry Scott was the head coach of a football team he would have been fired long ago, Not having a deal in place with the biggest pay tv provider in the country for 6 months would have been indefensible, let alone six years, smh Ya... cuz the analogy of a conference commissioner and head football coach is so appropriate. Lol The TV deal... if you care to research was a very two sided affair and several counters were dismissed by the presidents. So, ya... "blaming a HC" who is the chief executive and doesn't run teaching techs or coaching decisions by a group of college presidents. But, you go with whatever you want. 😁 Since you say the presented evaluation of Scott is bad, how would you evaluate Scott's performance? What criteria do you use in this evaluation? |
|
|
|
Post by usmc1958 on Mar 19, 2018 21:46:11 GMT -8
And in 2016-17 the Pac-12 had a Final Four men's and women's team, a Final Four baseball team, a football playoff semifinalist and two Super Six gymnastics teams. These things are cyclical. What's the cycle on Team Cheer. Those southern suckers down the road aren't due for a National Championship in cheer, are they? What would the proper response be - laugh or cry? |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 20, 2018 0:06:49 GMT -8
Ya... cuz the analogy of a conference commissioner and head football coach is so appropriate. Lol The TV deal... if you care to research was a very two sided affair and several counters were dismissed by the presidents. So, ya... "blaming a HC" who is the chief executive and doesn't run teaching techs or coaching decisions by a group of college presidents. But, you go with whatever you want. 😁 Since you say the presented evaluation of Scott is bad, how would you evaluate Scott's performance? What criteria do you use in this evaluation? As many have pointed out in previous posts the Pac12 has fared pretty well with regard to money in accordance with the respect afforded the league. The commish is not going to change the market place plain and simple. And... my initial and subsequent posts never said he was doing a stellar job or is without criticism. I simply point out, as many others have, the commish is not in "charge" of the decisions. In many cases he is a negotiator/mediator between parties and the university presidents. What ever failings people on this board (and around the Pac12) think the league has it starts and finishes in the offices of the 12 presidents. They have the final say in every major decision. When they think Larry is not performing they'll make the call. So, as of now I have no idea what pros and cons are Larry Scott and what are on the esteemed presidents. |
|
