The CardBoard
Larry Scott for the unemployment line - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Larry Scott for the unemployment line (/thread-16425.html)

Pages: 1 2

Larry Scott for the unemployment line - OutsiderFan - 09-16-2018

What a brutal Pac-12 Larry Scott has presided over creating.  The highest paid commissioner in college sports now has by any objective measure, the clearly by a long shot 5th best football conference in America.

This week is yet another pock market on the conference's credibility.

- USC blasted at a mediocre Texas (Lost to Maryland who lost to Temple)
- UCLA crushed at home by Fresno State to make the Bruins 0-3
- ASU loses at SDSU
- OSU loses at Nevada
- Stanford unable to impose will on UC Davis at LOS, and USC win looks very unimpressive now
- Oregon looks bad against a SJS squad some believe is the worst FBS team in the land 
- Washington doesn't exactly dominate a Utah team that struggled to beat Northern Illinois

And speaking of UW, playing Auburn close no longer seems like any accomplishment at all given it is evident Auburn is at best the #4 team in the SEC, and quite possibly the 5th best.

The Pac-12 has been declining under Larry Scott's watch. The 1-8 bowl game record looked bad, but it had the potential to be a blip or anomaly. Based on the 2018 season results through three weeks, the reality is the conference does suck, and is not going to make the playoff yet again.  

Stanford is going to vault to #7 in the AP today, but does anyone think Auburn or Wisconsin wouldn't beat Stanford? How about LSU or TCU?  ND will be overrated too in today's poll, but we're talking about the Pac-12 here.

I'll give you that the ACC looks pretty terrible after Clemson, but at least Clemson is a proven team and has a road win over an SEC contender.

Larry Scott needs to pay a price for the demise of Pac-12 football he has overseen.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - JPR36 - 09-16-2018

(09-16-2018, 03:31 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  What a brutal Pac-12 Larry Scott has presided over creating.  The highest paid commissioner in college sports now has by any objective measure, the clearly by a long shot 5th best football conference in America.

This week is yet another pock market on the conference's credibility.

- USC blasted at a mediocre Texas (Lost to Maryland who lost to Temple)
- UCLA crushed at home by Fresno State to make the Bruins 0-3
- ASU loses at SDSU
- OSU loses at Nevada
- Stanford unable to impose will on UC Davis at LOS, and USC win looks very unimpressive now
- Oregon looks bad against a SJS squad some believe is the worst FBS team in the land 
- Washington doesn't exactly dominate a Utah team that struggled to beat Northern Illinois

And speaking of UW, playing Auburn close no longer seems like any accomplishment at all given it is evident Auburn is at best the #4 team in the SEC, and quite possibly the 5th best.

The Pac-12 has been declining under Larry Scott's watch. The 1-8 bowl game record looked bad, but it had the potential to be a blip or anomaly. Based on the 2018 season results through three weeks, the reality is the conference does suck, and is not going to make the playoff yet again.  

Stanford is going to vault to #7 in the AP today, but does anyone think Auburn or Wisconsin wouldn't beat Stanford? How about LSU or TCU?  ND will be overrated too in today's poll, but we're talking about the Pac-12 here.

I'll give you that the ACC looks pretty terrible after Clemson, but at least Clemson is a proven team and has a road win over an SEC contender.

Larry Scott needs to pay a price for the demise of Pac-12 football he has overseen.
 
Yeah, the Pac-12 has not played well against outside competition, and I suppose the buck has to stop somewhere.
Does Scott hire the coaches, recruit the players and develop them, though? A little bit of a stretch to blame him.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - OutsiderFan - 09-16-2018

Well the reality is guys like Scott are hired to maximize football revenue and by extension performance. IOW, it is his job to make football competitive with national peers. He's not paid a fortune to get women's field hockey on TV.

And let's not gloss over the Pac12 Network fiasco and failing to get on DirecTV, which is an underlying factor contributing to football weakness.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - JPR36 - 09-16-2018

[quote="OutsiderFan" pid='229728' dateline='1537096257']
Well the reality is guys like Scott are hired to maximize football revenue and by extension performance. IOW, it is his job to make football competitive with national peers. He's not paid a fortune to get women's field hockey on TV.

And let's not gloss over the Pac12 Network fiasco and failing to get on DirecTV, which is an underlying factor contributing to football weakness.
[/quote

OK, so what you are saying is had Scott negotiated better TV contracts, the Pac-12 would have hired better coaches, recruited better players and developed them better. Well, maybe. I still think it's a bit of a stretch though.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - SF_Cardinal_Fan - 09-16-2018

Yesterday , at the conclusion of a play I left my seat and walked downstairs to  the men's room ............stood in the corridor checking emails on my phone........perused the various food stand offerings and decided on California Pizza kitchen......(paid for same with a credit card).....picked up some napkins.......and returned to my seat............all before the next play had started.
Is Larry Scott responsible for the lengthy t.v. timeouts ?

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - OutsiderFan - 09-16-2018

Scott's job is to generate revenue for his employer. Football drives that bus and is essential to manage properly. 

There are a range of things that can be done to strengthen or weaken it. Where was the campaign to push CMac and Love for the H? The discussion about the student part of athlete?

Last year's most important conference game of year was on a Friday night, preempted by freaking truck racing? 

The list of failures is legion, including failing to kill the Big 12 when it was on the ropes. How have Colorado and Utah helped the conference exactly? Just more mouths to feed without more revenue than they are worth.

These things were all bad, but now we see the on field competitiveness being impacted by them. And let's not forget hoops sucks too. What was it, 3 Pac12 teams in NCAA tournament last season?

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - 2006alum - 09-16-2018

I think there's a lot of revisionist history going on here. I don't have time for a lengthy post on the history of our conference, but back when there was the massive conference realignment, Scott was the driving force to make it happen, and getting Colorado and Utah expanded our TV markets, which in turn enhanced the conference's value for its TV deal. When he signed the deal, it was an unprecedented deal for a conference. Yes, since then other conferences have copied us and added even more value, but I think we really underestimate the inherent disadvantages the PAC-12 has from the standpoint of recruiting, attendance, and interest. Just a few things to consider:

-77% of the country is in the Eastern or Central time zones. So primetime games on the west coast are only primetime for around 23% of the country. And it means that 4/5 of the country has no geographic reason to care about the PAC-12 at all.
-With the exception of U$C and Cal, 10 of the 12 PAC-12 schools are on the quarter system, which means fully 1/4 of football games are played before students have even returned to campus. That makes it harder to hype early games and maximize attendance.
-We have some serious geography separating our schools, many of which are no where near hub airports. The average distance between two PAC-12 schools is 630 miles, which is farther than any other P5 conference. That makes tailgates, away attendance, and developing a general culture of campus rivalries much harder to pull off.
-For whatever reason, west coast audiences don't care as much about college football and basketball. TV ratings are worse adjusted for population. I think part of this is that alternative and outdoor sports are more popular, and also that weekend weather is predictably much nicer for most west coast locales in the fall, so why stay inside and watch TV all day? By contrast, September games in the South could be 90+ degrees and November games in the BIG 10 can be 30 degrees.
-Geography and selectivity make recruiting harder. Collectively, the PAC-12 is by far the most academically rigorous conference. All four CA schools are among the top 25 undergraduate programs in the country. No other conference comes close. At the same time, apart from CA, we're a collection of largely rural states with a few big population centers (and many of the schools, including both Oregon Schools, WSU, and Colo., are far from a large international airport). I cannot imagine the recruiting hurdles that both WSU and OSU coaches face when trying to attract players, because, quite frankly, those schools just are not in geographically attractive or proximate locations.

All of these factors hurt fan interest, attendance, and viewing. Do "PAC-12 After Dark" games suck? Often, yes. But if an SEC game gets 3-4 times the viewers during East Coast primetime, in what universe does any TV network want to preempt that game for a PAC-12 game just so we get a 5 p.m. PST kickoff time?

Is the state of the PAC-12 perfect? No. Do I wish we had the same draw as East Coast conferences? Absolutely. But I think we need to be realistic about where we stand as a conference. At least for me, the PAC-12 network has been an enormous boon. As an East Coaster, I've been able to get most of our football games and nearly all of our men's and women's basketball games. Before the PAC-12 network, I'd catch a few random games that got nationally televised and that was it. I can't say how much harder it is to stay passionate about the players and teams when all you can do is read about them and watch Youtube clips. I have become substantially more engaged over the past few years as a result of being able to actually see the games (and, indeed, watching games on the PAC-12 network is what drew me to the CardBoard to begin with).

Just my two cents. I welcome yours.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - AcesUp - 09-16-2018

Is Larry Scott directly responsible for the PAC 12 demise? No

But does he play a roll in downturn of the conference? Probably

Remember, Scott was hired on to usher in expansion for the conference.  When he didn't get Texas and/or Oklahoma in the loop, he wasn't in position to dictate the big money deals from the networks.

The Big 10 expansion and SEC getting Texas A&M gave those conferences a leg up at the negotiation table for TV deals. 

And we all know the PAC 12 was given the leftovers and Scott had no choice but convince the school chancellors to invest in the PAC 12 and play the football games at night when it didn't have to compete against the other conferences.  

So you indirectly point to Scott for not having any H-award winners, too. Late 10PM EST start times when the East Coast is ready to go to sleep.

I think the TV deals expire at 2024? New leadership should be at helm by then and hopefully a better era of the PAC 12.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - JPR36 - 09-16-2018

(09-16-2018, 05:49 AM)2006alum Wrote:  I think there's a lot of revisionist history going on here. I don't have time for a lengthy post on the history of our conference, but back when there was the massive conference realignment, Scott was the driving force to make it happen, and getting Colorado and Utah expanded our TV markets, which in turn enhanced the conference's value for its TV deal. When he signed the deal, it was an unprecedented deal for a conference. Yes, since then other conferences have copied us and added even more value, but I think we really underestimate the inherent disadvantages the PAC-12 has from the standpoint of recruiting, attendance, and interest. Just a few things to consider:

-77% of the country is in the Eastern or Central time zones. So primetime games on the west coast are only primetime for around 23% of the country. And it means that 4/5 of the country has no geographic reason to care about the PAC-12 at all.
-With the exception of U$C and Cal, 10 of the 12 PAC-12 schools are on the quarter system, which means fully 1/4 of football games are played before students have even returned to campus. That makes it harder to hype early games and maximize attendance.
-We have some serious geography separating our schools, many of which are no where near hub airports. The average distance between two PAC-12 schools is 630 miles, which is farther than any other P5 conference. That makes tailgates, away attendance, and developing a general culture of campus rivalries much harder to pull off.
-For whatever reason, west coast audiences don't care as much about college football and basketball. TV ratings are worse adjusted for population. I think part of this is that alternative and outdoor sports are more popular, and also that weekend weather is predictably much nicer for most west coast locales in the fall, so why stay inside and watch TV all day? By contrast, September games in the South could be 90+ degrees and November games in the BIG 10 can be 30 degrees.
-Geography and selectivity make recruiting harder. Collectively, the PAC-12 is by far the most academically rigorous conference. All four CA schools are among the top 25 undergraduate programs in the country. No other conference comes close. At the same time, apart from CA, we're a collection of largely rural states with a few big population centers (and many of the schools, including both Oregon Schools, WSU, and Colo., are far from a large international airport). I cannot imagine the recruiting hurdles that both WSU and OSU coaches face when trying to attract players, because, quite frankly, those schools just are not in geographically attractive or proximate locations.

All of these factors hurt fan interest, attendance, and viewing. Do "PAC-12 After Dark" games suck? Often, yes. But if an SEC game gets 3-4 times the viewers during East Coast primetime, in what universe does any TV network want to preempt that game for a PAC-12 game just so we get a 5 p.m. PST kickoff time?

Is the state of the PAC-12 perfect? No. Do I wish we had the same draw as East Coast conferences? Absolutely. But I think we need to be realistic about where we stand as a conference. At least for me, the PAC-12 network has been an enormous boon. As an East Coaster, I've been able to get most of our football games and nearly all of our men's and women's basketball games. Before the PAC-12 network, I'd catch a few random games that got nationally televised and that was it. I can't say how much harder it is to stay passionate about the players and teams when all you can do is read about them and watch Youtube clips. I have become substantially more engaged over the past few years as a result of being able to actually see the games (and, indeed, watching games on the PAC-12 network is what drew me to the CardBoard to begin with).

Just my two cents. I welcome yours.

Also, I think we are taking kind of a small sample when we conclude that the Pac-12 sucks in football based on 2017 and three games of 2018.
Let's look at the final polls in the three years before that.
2016 U$C #3, Washington #4, Stanford #12.
2015 Stanford #3 after completely destroying iowa in the Rose Bowl.
2014 Oregon #2 after making the finals in the CFP. UCLA was #10.
Not, at least IMO, indicative of h.uge problems.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - stupac2 - 09-16-2018

Most of this stuff isn't Scott's fault. He can't control the coaches the ADs hire, he can just give them money to compete with other schools (which afaik he has). He can't help recruit, he can't help coach, etc etc. Has he made mistakes? Yeah, for sure, although I'm not certain that the Pac-12 Network will look like a loser long-term. The reality of it is that the Pac-12 operates at significant disadvantages compared to the other conferences, and that often shows up on the field.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - CrazedZooChimp - 09-16-2018

I just want to point out that the B1G is also a giant pile of garbage. This weekend their teams lost to: Troy, Kansas, Temple, BYU (who just lost to Cal last week, and beat #6 Wisconsin), and Akron.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - d4cohn - 09-16-2018

(09-16-2018, 05:18 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Scott's job is to generate revenue for his employer. Football drives that bus and is essential to manage properly. 

There are a range of things that can be done to strengthen or weaken it. Where was the campaign to push CMac and Love for the H? The discussion about the student part of athlete?

Last year's most important conference game of year was on a Friday night, preempted by freaking truck racing? 

The list of failures is legion, including failing to kill the Big 12 when it was on the ropes. How have Colorado and Utah helped the conference exactly? Just more mouths to feed without more revenue than they are worth.

These things were all bad, but now we see the on field competitiveness being impacted by them. And let's not forget hoops sucks too. What was it, 3 Pac12 teams in NCAA tournament last season?

Colorado is undefeated, and has perhaps the best road non-conference win in the Pac-12 South with the win at Nebraska (granted Nebraska is not a great team, but even road wins at mediocre teams in a hostile environment is worth some credit). With SC's back-to-back implosions, Colorado is my pick to win the Pac-12 South, which would be their 2nd division title in 3 years. As I posted on another thread last night, Utah has the talent to contend in the Pac-12 South; however, in big games, they continue to make mind-numbing mistakes to ruin their chances to pick up the big wins necessary to finally win the division. I think that is a reflection of coaching at this point, rather than a program incapable of competing in this conference.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - donkey687 - 09-16-2018

I think this is mixing issues.  Larry Scott is in charge of maximizing revenue for the conference. His results are mixed. There were some big contracts signed and not signed (directv).  The mediocrity of the conference is due to what is happening in Los Angeles.  They should be power teams every year. They have had a string of weak coaches. This is not due to a lack of revenue to pay coaches nor a function of anything Larry Scott has done. These were bad decisions by the A.D. but they also made the rise of Stanford possible.  Stanford has one of the top 6 records in college football this decade with multiple big bowl games and top 10 rankings.  If we do .500 or worse against the L.A. schools, it would be a different story. We should be thankful for their mediocrity and not pointing fingers at Larry.  I don't give the SEC Commissioner any credit for having Saban at Alabama.  If the Alabama AD hired Sarkissian or Kiffen or Helton, I don't think the SEC would be winning as many national championships.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - d4cohn - 09-16-2018

(09-16-2018, 03:31 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  Stanford is going to vault to #7 in the AP today, but does anyone think Auburn or Wisconsin wouldn't beat Stanford? How about LSU or TCU?  ND will be overrated too in today's poll, but we're talking about the Pac-12 here.

I'll give you that the ACC looks pretty terrible after Clemson, but at least Clemson is a proven team and has a road win over an SEC contender.

Larry Scott needs to pay a price for the demise of Pac-12 football he has overseen.

The ACC and Big 10 are both just as mediocre, if not more so, behind their frontrunners. I would add VA Tech to the list of good ACC teams, but I fully expect Stanford could contend with them (maybe not Clemson). In the Big 10, it is Ohio State and everyone else. Michigan State has already lost on the road to Arizona State, and is nearly out of the rankings, Michigan got embarrassed by Notre Dame and should be out of the rankings, Penn State needed a photo finish to avoid the Appalachian State home upset. Stanford could contend (if not likely beat) any team in the Big 10 outside of OSU.

And I think Stanford could contend with all four teams listed above (Auburn, Wisconsin, LSU and TCU) in a true neutral or home environment for us. I mean, we went toe-to-toe with TCU in a more road than neutral environment last year, and only lost by 2 (and probably should have won). Wisconsin and LSU have great defenses and at least solid running games, but are very limited at the QB position. Auburn can't convert points in the redzone, and make silly mistakes (like bad penalties at the most inopportune times), to allow teams with less talent to contend. 

The measure of the quality of a team isn't just the talent or recruiting stars, even if that is a big part of who contends and who does not. Other things like coaching, development, play-calling and discipline matter too.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - Redrum - 09-16-2018

(09-16-2018, 05:49 AM)2006alum Wrote:  I think there's a lot of revisionist history going on here. I don't have time for a lengthy post on the history of our conference, but back when there was the massive conference realignment, Scott was the driving force to make it happen, and getting Colorado and Utah expanded our TV markets, which in turn enhanced the conference's value for its TV deal. When he signed the deal, it was an unprecedented deal for a conference. Yes, since then other conferences have copied us and added even more value, but I think we really underestimate the inherent disadvantages the PAC-12 has from the standpoint of recruiting, attendance, and interest. Just a few things to consider:

-77% of the country is in the Eastern or Central time zones. So primetime games on the west coast are only primetime for around 23% of the country. And it means that 4/5 of the country has no geographic reason to care about the PAC-12 at all.
-With the exception of U$C and Cal, 10 of the 12 PAC-12 schools are on the quarter system, which means fully 1/4 of football games are played before students have even returned to campus. That makes it harder to hype early games and maximize attendance.
-We have some serious geography separating our schools, many of which are no where near hub airports. The average distance between two PAC-12 schools is 630 miles, which is farther than any other P5 conference. That makes tailgates, away attendance, and developing a general culture of campus rivalries much harder to pull off.
-For whatever reason, west coast audiences don't care as much about college football and basketball. TV ratings are worse adjusted for population. I think part of this is that alternative and outdoor sports are more popular, and also that weekend weather is predictably much nicer for most west coast locales in the fall, so why stay inside and watch TV all day? By contrast, September games in the South could be 90+ degrees and November games in the BIG 10 can be 30 degrees.
-Geography and selectivity make recruiting harder. Collectively, the PAC-12 is by far the most academically rigorous conference. All four CA schools are among the top 25 undergraduate programs in the country. No other conference comes close. At the same time, apart from CA, we're a collection of largely rural states with a few big population centers (and many of the schools, including both Oregon Schools, WSU, and Colo., are far from a large international airport). I cannot imagine the recruiting hurdles that both WSU and OSU coaches face when trying to attract players, because, quite frankly, those schools just are not in geographically attractive or proximate locations.

All of these factors hurt fan interest, attendance, and viewing. Do "PAC-12 After Dark" games suck? Often, yes. But if an SEC game gets 3-4 times the viewers during East Coast primetime, in what universe does any TV network want to preempt that game for a PAC-12 game just so we get a 5 p.m. PST kickoff time?

Is the state of the PAC-12 perfect? No. Do I wish we had the same draw as East Coast conferences? Absolutely. But I think we need to be realistic about where we stand as a conference. At least for me, the PAC-12 network has been an enormous boon. As an East Coaster, I've been able to get most of our football games and nearly all of our men's and women's basketball games. Before the PAC-12 network, I'd catch a few random games that got nationally televised and that was it. I can't say how much harder it is to stay passionate about the players and teams when all you can do is read about them and watch Youtube clips. I have become substantially more engaged over the past few years as a result of being able to actually see the games (and, indeed, watching games on the PAC-12 network is what drew me to the CardBoard to begin with).

Just my two cents. I welcome yours.

If that’s your 2 cents,  can I be heir to your whole estate?
I can’t fault much of your analysis but it leads to the conclusion that we PAC 12 members are just screwed and USC’s and UCLA’s success/ failure are the only “control levers” for exposure and revenue. I’d rather stay up really  late (+ early ) back in the CST zone than seee more exposure, glory and revenue for them bastahds.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - cardcrimson - 09-16-2018

If I recall correctly, Larry Scott was brought on as a marketing genius after his tenure at the Women's Tennis Association. While the SEC was pushing hard for Mark Ingram, Cam Newton, and Derrick Henry, Scott did nothing to market Toby Gerhart, Andrew Luck, or Christian McCaffrey. Similarly, some dude from the Big 12 named Bob Bowlsby successfully facilitated campaigns for RG 3 and Baker Mayfield over Andrew Luck (again) and Bryce Love. Larry Scott, marketing genius? No.

Sadly, getting teams into the BCS and the college football playoffs was about marketing the strengths of the conference. What has been done? Nada. Sadly, the Mouse controls much of the hype, yet the "genius" made bed fellows with the Fox instead.

You can't watch Saturday TV without hearing commercials touting the SEC with the ongoing chants, SEC, SEC, SEC. The Big 10 also does a great job of marketing. Where is Larry Scott and the Pac-12? Well, we're sucking hind-tit watching Pac-12 football at 10pm eastern and at 11 am Pacific on some bootleg internet site.

Yeah. Kids want to come play here. Pathetic.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - CTcard - 09-16-2018

(09-16-2018, 04:05 PM)Redrum Wrote:  I can’t fault much of your analysis but it leads to the conclusion that we PAC 12 members are just screwed 

Well, if your deepest desire is to see Pac 12 football more popular, generating more revenue, and on more mid-day Saturday eastern time telecasts than the SEC and Big Ten, then yeah you are screwed. 

Fortunately that is not definitive for performance, and the Pac 12 is on relatively even footing with the ACC and Big 12. 

----
I don't like Larry Scott either, but agree with 2006alum that some of the complaints here are off-base. 

First I defer to 2006alum's post on popularity/size of the fan base and thus the basic requirement for making money. 

As far as I know the conferences did not themselves mount Heesman campaigns for Griffin, Mayfield, Newton, Henry or Ingram, just like the Pac 12 did not do so for Mariota. Seems to me conferences are not well placed to do this, and they would face serious internal dissension if they chose one conference player to promote over another. 

Getting into the playoff (and the BCS title game previously) has relatively little to do with publicity efforts, and a lot to do with lucking out with a conference champ with one or fewer losses. There has never been a two-loss team in the playoff. There has never been a one-loss Pac 12 champ who has missed the playoff. The one loss teams that have had some claim to "missing out" include TCU and Baylor in 2014 … and just maybe Wisconsin in 2017. 

And, the basic decision to screw the actual fans showing up in favor of TV money came from the conference presidents, not Larry Scott. Scott just carried it out.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - BobK - 09-16-2018

I too wish Scott could block and tackle better

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - cardcrimson - 09-16-2018

(09-16-2018, 08:28 PM)CTcard Wrote:  
(09-16-2018, 04:05 PM)Redrum Wrote:  I can’t fault much of your analysis but it leads to the conclusion that we PAC 12 members are just screwed 

Well, if your deepest desire is to see Pac 12 football more popular, generating more revenue, and on more mid-day Saturday eastern time telecasts than the SEC and Big Ten, then yeah you are screwed. 

Fortunately that is not definitive for performance, and the Pac 12 is on relatively even footing with the ACC and Big 12. 

----
I don't like Larry Scott either, but agree with 2006alum that some of the complaints here are off-base. 

First I defer to his post on popularity/size of the fan base and thus the basic requirement for making money. 

As far as I know the conferences did not themselves mount Heesman campaigns for Griffin, Mayfield, Newton, Henry or Ingram, just like the Pac 12 did not do so for Mariota. Seems to me conferences are not well placed to do this, and they would face serious internal dissension if they chose one conference player to promote over another. 

Getting into the playoff (and the BCS title game previously) has relatively little to do with publicity efforts, and a lot to do with lucking out with a conference champ with one or fewer losses. There has never been a two-loss team in the playoff. There has never been a one-loss Pac 12 champ who has missed the playoff. The one loss teams that have had some claim to "missing out" include TCU and Baylor in 2014 … and just maybe Wisconsin in 2017. 

And, the basic decision to screw the actual fans showing up in favor of TV money came from the conference presidents, not Larry Scott. Scott just carried it out.

Maybe TV marketing, but certainly marketing behind the scenes. Remember, Mike Slive refused to suspend Cam Newton, even though his father clearly violated SEC regulations, because "none of my predecessors have ever suspended anyone for violating those rules, so I'm not going to start now" . . . . Opening up an SEC championship and a BCS berth for the Tigers. . . .It's the connecting with the talking heads that drive the markeing. Paul Finebaum as a persistent expert? National shows with only folks from the SEC or ACC. Come on. . . .It's all marketing and Scott has failed miserably against the big boys.

RE: Larry Scott for the unemployment line - BostonCard - 09-16-2018

(09-16-2018, 08:02 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  If I recall correctly, Larry Scott was brought on as a marketing genius after his tenure at the Women's Tennis Association. While the SEC was pushing hard for Mark Ingram, Cam Newton, and Derrick Henry, Scott did nothing to market Toby Gerhart, Andrew Luck, or Christian McCaffrey. Similarly, some dude from the Big 12 named Bob Bowlsby successfully facilitated campaigns for RG 3 and Baker Mayfield over Andrew Luck (again) and Bryce Love. Larry Scott, marketing genius? No.

That's pretty odd that Bowlsby, who was Stanford's AD until May of 2012, would facilitate RG3's 2011 Voldemort campaign.

BC