[CTcard]

I don't think it's fair or even accurate to blame Scott for the Pac-12 falling further behind the other major conferences.  ...

They could have expanded to 16 before anyone else and didn't.  They could have allowed on-demand viewing of the Pac-12 Networks over the Internet and didn't.  They could have refused so many late kickoffs.  They could have done lots of different things.  My guess is Scott wanted to be the first conference to 16 teams and was stopped by Pac-12 schools who don't want to push the envelope and be bold because that just isn't the culture of the conference, no matter who the commissioner is.

For the most part I agree with your first statement, depending upon exactly what one wishes to define as "falling behind". For most people that means the Pac 12 making less money than the SEC and Big Ten. The primary problem leading to that situation is that the population in the west is generally less interested in (i.e. less willing to dump dollars on) college football than that in the south and midwest. That is primarily not Larry Scott's fault, though part of his job is to drum up interest.

Most of your issues in the latter paragraph would not necessarily serve to improve the revenue situation.

It is not clear that expanding to 16 would have put the Pac 12 members in a better financial situation than currently; it would have depended upon the details. At any rate, I thought the key stumbling block was Texas refusing to abandon the Longhorn Network or agree to equal revenue sharing.

It seems to be almost universally agreed in the TV business that independent on-demand viewing is a revenue killer. So we all would certainly like it, but it probably wouldn't help stopping the Pac 12 from falling behind the SEC.

Late kickoffs is similar. Those were put in place explicitly to bring in more money in the bargaining with the TV networks.

I think the steps to "modernize" that are likely to come down the pipe are going to annoy us, and certainly cost us coin. 

[CTcard]

I don't think it's fair or even accurate to blame Scott for the Pac-12 falling further behind the other major conferences.  ...

They could have expanded to 16 before anyone else and didn't.  They could have allowed on-demand viewing of the Pac-12 Networks over the Internet and didn't.  They could have refused so many late kickoffs.  They could have done lots of different things.  My guess is Scott wanted to be the first conference to 16 teams and was stopped by Pac-12 schools who don't want to push the envelope and be bold because that just isn't the culture of the conference, no matter who the commissioner is.

For the most part I agree with your first statement, depending upon exactly what one wishes to define as "falling behind". For most people that means the Pac 12 making less money than the SEC and Big Ten. The primary problem leading to that situation is that the population in the west is generally less interested in (i.e. less willing to dump dollars on) college football than that in the south and midwest. That is primarily not Larry Scott's fault, though part of his job is to drum up interest.

Most of your issues in the latter paragraph would not necessarily serve to improve the revenue situation.

It is not clear that expanding to 16 would have put the Pac 12 members in a better financial situation than currently; it would have depended upon the details. At any rate, I thought the key stumbling block was Texas refusing to abandon the Longhorn Network or agree to equal revenue sharing.

It seems to be almost universally agreed in the TV business that independent on-demand viewing is a revenue killer. So we all would certainly like it, but it probably wouldn't help stopping the Pac 12 from falling behind the SEC.

Late kickoffs is similar. Those were put in place explicitly to bring in more money in the bargaining with the TV networks.

I think the steps to "modernize" that are likely to come down the pipe are going to annoy us, and certainly cost us coin.