Finally read the first two articles.
Maybe my expectations are too high, but I didn't think much of the articles.
Others have noticed many issues with the finance article.
I THINK that the Pac 12 conference expenses are excessively high even considering that the conference runs the network and the west coast is pretty expensive, but this article didn't really make that clear. The article kept grabbing bits and pieces of spending information (salaries of the top 5 officers - rent on the headquarters building) and comparing these to just two other conferences.
Why could Canzano not put the whole package together? What does the Pac 12 spend on administration overall? Is there a clear distinction between general operations and network operations? Why not compare to all the other Power 5 conferences?
Maybe more complete information isn't available, but it seems that in such an in depth article explaining what information is available and where it comes from is job #1.
On officiating. It's extremely clear that there was a problem with Dixon getting involved in the review of targeting. Beyond that, there are lots of hints of broader problems, but again the article didn't really make things clear.
A serious error in the article is that Canzano never really makes it clear that Leach was complaining about a different call than the one in which Dixon had been involved - which itself was an outrageous call in WSU's favor.
He rides the storyline that the Pac 12 offices wants to tip the scales in favor of the marquee programs, without ever addressing that Dixon chiming in to overturn a penalty against WSU would apparently do just the opposite.
There's all sorts of quotations which Canzano presents in a sinister light, that may or may not be so sinister, Example: from the ex-director of officials, "The change of environment was noticeable. Under Larry Scott, there was more direct involvement with officiating than under Tom Hansen." Well, is that bad or good? Could be either. Would be worth exploring. Too bad Canzano didn't.
And I have to say I am a little ticked on the outrage over the fact that the ASU coach got a fine for complaining about the calls in the Stanford game. First of all, as covered in a thread on this board at the time, the coach had the circumstances of the calls completely wrong and the two varied from a close call to a textbook PI. But the real issue is the fake outrage that the conference would bar coaches from publicly making such complaints. I don't think this rule is new and I believe that pretty much every league has such a rule - it's hardly a sinister sign of the Svengali-like control of Larry Scott.
What did I learn from the article?
- There's lots of general griping.
- Employees at the offices don't seem to like the top management much.
- Bill Moos (former AD at Oregon and WSU, now at Nebraska) really doesn't like Scott.
Maybe my expectations are too high, but I didn't think much of the articles.
Others have noticed many issues with the finance article.
I THINK that the Pac 12 conference expenses are excessively high even considering that the conference runs the network and the west coast is pretty expensive, but this article didn't really make that clear. The article kept grabbing bits and pieces of spending information (salaries of the top 5 officers - rent on the headquarters building) and comparing these to just two other conferences.
Why could Canzano not put the whole package together? What does the Pac 12 spend on administration overall? Is there a clear distinction between general operations and network operations? Why not compare to all the other Power 5 conferences?
Maybe more complete information isn't available, but it seems that in such an in depth article explaining what information is available and where it comes from is job #1.
On officiating. It's extremely clear that there was a problem with Dixon getting involved in the review of targeting. Beyond that, there are lots of hints of broader problems, but again the article didn't really make things clear.
A serious error in the article is that Canzano never really makes it clear that Leach was complaining about a different call than the one in which Dixon had been involved - which itself was an outrageous call in WSU's favor.
He rides the storyline that the Pac 12 offices wants to tip the scales in favor of the marquee programs, without ever addressing that Dixon chiming in to overturn a penalty against WSU would apparently do just the opposite.
There's all sorts of quotations which Canzano presents in a sinister light, that may or may not be so sinister, Example: from the ex-director of officials, "The change of environment was noticeable. Under Larry Scott, there was more direct involvement with officiating than under Tom Hansen." Well, is that bad or good? Could be either. Would be worth exploring. Too bad Canzano didn't.
And I have to say I am a little ticked on the outrage over the fact that the ASU coach got a fine for complaining about the calls in the Stanford game. First of all, as covered in a thread on this board at the time, the coach had the circumstances of the calls completely wrong and the two varied from a close call to a textbook PI. But the real issue is the fake outrage that the conference would bar coaches from publicly making such complaints. I don't think this rule is new and I believe that pretty much every league has such a rule - it's hardly a sinister sign of the Svengali-like control of Larry Scott.
What did I learn from the article?
- There's lots of general griping.
- Employees at the offices don't seem to like the top management much.
- Bill Moos (former AD at Oregon and WSU, now at Nebraska) really doesn't like Scott.