Once again, I think we're overlooking the chicken and egg problem with the PAC-12. Assuming this disparity is true, is the reason why the Big Ten and the SEC got to pick their bowl order and we don't because we have a conference commissioner who negotiates weakly, or because he has a conference product that leaves him with a weaker hand to negotiate? I really can't repeat myself enough with this: PAC-12 teams don't travel as well, don't sell out stadiums, and don't generate eyeballs on TV anywhere near what the Big Ten and SEC do. If the disparity exists, it almost certainly exists because the Bowls were much happier to take whoever the SEC threw at them than the PAC-12, and negotiated for a role in deciding which PAC-12 team.
Scott came from the WTA, where he made brobdingnagian steps for the women's tour. But
at no point did he ever replicate the deals the ATP got. In that sense, I suppose you could say he fell short. But
nobody thought he was a terrible Chairman of the WTA because he couldn't achieve for the WTA what the ATP had. Quite the contrary, he was widely commended when he left, as he
substantially increased the tour's annual revenue.
Thus, I would put forward that the better measure is what we have now versus what we had prior to his negotiation of the conference's media and bowl packages. On that metric, the PAC-12 is in much better shape, especially since the product on both the football field and the basketball court has dropped off significantly over the last few seasons. There's a reason why
the university presidents are quite happy with him.
Sorry for the diatribe, but I find the attacks on Scott somewhat naive. Your grievances are not misplaced, but your attribution for their cause is. If you want better bowl assignments, tell your fellow alums to stop founding companies, performing emergency surgeries, litigating Supreme Court cases, and winning Emmy Awards. Then we'd all have more time and energy to spend sitting on bleacher seats. Until then, it is what it is.