Larry Scott

azcat34 · Post by **azcat34** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:46 am

ANGCatFan wrote:
azcat34 wrote:
ANGCatFan wrote: I'm much more interested in football this week than dwelling on past wrongs, but here are some quick answers, so you know where I stand.

Rush was the major problem in the PAC-12 tourney. He resented Miller for sending in video evidence of bad calls all season ( Like Miller was supposed to) and intimated refs and made them quick to call a T on Miller. If one asshole is the problem it is not a conspiracy, it is just one asshole.

Scott fired Rush, but he was late to take care of an obviously arrogant, bullying head of officials and resents Arizona and their fan base for holding him (Scott) responsible.

We got screwed in basketball, but that doesn't mean the PAC 12 or Larry Scott are always looking to screw us. We are meant to learn from the past not dwell in it.

I expect a fair game on Friday, but trust Greg Byrne to be a great advocate if there is another incident.
This is a VERY loose interpretation of what happened.

Scott backed Ed Rush greatly after the incident:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... ean-miller

I do not find anything that rises to a fireable offense or a breach of ethics or a breach of the integrity of officiating or the program," Scott told ESPN.com's Andy Katz on Tuesday.

"We will decide at the end of the season how we continue with him or not as part of the normal review as part of the coordinators," Scott said. "There was no part of the investigation … that would rise to the level of him being fired, so he hasn't been fired."

He didn't fire Rush until the overwhelming amount of disgust that came from Goodman's report. Scott even said right after the incident it had nothing to do with Sean Miller. Obviously a bold face lie.

You are also over glossing over Rush's significant shady history in the NBA and downright horrible reputation. Yet, Scott hired him.

I am not saying there will be shadiness on Friday, although I am expecting it. But you are losing sight of what really happened in Vegas as it gets further into history.
I guess I'm missing where I was loose or glossing over. I stated at the beginning that this was a quick response not an attempt to rehash the full Rush scandal.

I think you were looking for a disagreement instead of reading what I wrote.

I stated Scott was late in firing Rush. That is an abridged way of saying everything you accused me of leaving out.

I apologize for not saying that Rush was also corrupt instead of just calling him arrogant, bullying and an asshole. I can see how those comments make you think I was supporting Rush.

I am shocked you have time to pick nits when all I can focus on this week is how to beat Oregon and who else would have to lose for Arizona to play in the Rose Bowl.

Bear Down and beat the Ducks! Why not Arizona!

You were loose in saying Rush was the problem in the Pac-12 tournament. Scott hired him and didn't fire him for awhile likely to lawyer up the resignation so Rush didn't turn into a squeaky wheel afterwards and tell the public how involved Scott was in his "joke" to officials.

Either way, when you are the boss (Scott) and you hire a guy with a shady past history (Rush) and he acts up again, well it's on you.

Again, not trying to nit pick with you. But you seem to have a lot of blame for Rush and not the guy who hired him and runs the entire conference. It is like all those football coaches are egomaniacs, but then when a player is found with 5K in cash the coach magically has no clue of any wrongdoing. Doesn't pass the smell test and neither did this incident.

My google search to pull up the Scott/Rush ESPN story took about 15 seconds. The incident was ridiculously shady and I felt my 1-2 minutes typing that post was worth it.

I agree with you though, I am on board for a win this Friday! Go Cats.

ANGCatFan · Post by **ANGCatFan** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:49 am

You are right. I blame Rush for the problems at the PAC 12 tourney. He is the primary culprit and was fired (finally, after too much delay) because of his actions.

I blame Scott for hiring Rush, trying to cover up his corruption, being a prick, dressing too often like a douche, not getting a Direct TV deal, and not being man enough to face the Arizona fan base after his corruption was exposed. I believe that Rush may never have been publicly fired except for the pressure applied by Arizona's very passionate fan base. I would fire Larry Scott tomorrow if I had the power. The only reason I didn't mention this in previous posts was because I didn't think it was directly relevant.

I have never tried to be loose with the facts or try and cover-up the egregious harm done to the Arizona players and fans who were denied a PAC 12 title by the direct actions of Rush. I don't like, trust or respect Larry Scott. I believe almost everyone on this board knows we were screwed by Rush and mistreated by Scott and there was no reason to provide a summary of the entire incident.

I also still don't believe the PAC 12 is conspiring with officials to swing football games. Bad calls on Friday will be a result of mistakes or incompetence ( I do believe the PAC 12 has had consistently bad officiating) and not because of corruption.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:29 am

I am sure the league has made it abundantly clear to its employees that Oregon winning would be on more benefit than otherwise. And I am sure that is about as far as anything will go. I doubt you see anything overtly favoring Oregon in the officiating tomorrow, but there will probably be numerous small calls or non-calls that favor UO slightly...

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:18 am

Have to give LS a little credit. He was on Jay Mohr yesterday and called the PAC-12 Championship game a playoffs "quarterfinal", saying whoever wins should absolutely be in the CFP playoffs.

azcat34 · Post by **azcat34** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:26 am

ANGCatFan wrote:You are right. I blame Rush for the problems at the PAC 12 tourney. He is the primary culprit and was fired (finally, after too much delay) because of his actions.

I blame Scott for hiring Rush, trying to cover up his corruption, being a prick, dressing too often like a douche, not getting a Direct TV deal, and not being man enough to face the Arizona fan base after his corruption was exposed. I believe that Rush may never have been publicly fired except for the pressure applied by Arizona's very passionate fan base. I would fire Larry Scott tomorrow if I had the power. The only reason I didn't mention this in previous posts was because I didn't think it was directly relevant.

I have never tried to be loose with the facts or try and cover-up the egregious harm done to the Arizona players and fans who were denied a PAC 12 title by the direct actions of Rush. I don't like, trust or respect Larry Scott. I believe almost everyone on this board knows we were screwed by Rush and mistreated by Scott and there was no reason to provide a summary of the entire incident.

I also still don't believe the PAC 12 is conspiring with officials to swing football games. Bad calls on Friday will be a result of mistakes or incompetence ( I do believe the PAC 12 has had consistently bad officiating) and not because of corruption.

Sounds good, we are definitely on the same page!

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 7:31 am

Fuck Larry Scott.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:56 am

UAEebs86 wrote:Have to give LS a little credit. He was on Jay Mohr yesterday and called the PAC-12 Championship game a playoffs "quarterfinal", saying whoever wins should absolutely be in the CFP playoffs.

Of cour$e he would $ay thi$

azthrillhouse · Post by **azthrillhouse** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:19 pm

Anybody else following these tweets from the conference from this Tech Summit?

It's kind of stomach-turning to read them.....clearly there's a lack of understanding of what it means to be a fan.

Uh, no, I feel a deep connection to my alma mater, not a fucking brand.

wyo-cat · Post by **wyo-cat** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:18 pm

Its all brand loyalty to these chumps ^

azpenguin · Post by **azpenguin** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:37 pm

You simply just don't get it. These guys know how to vertically integrate the synergy of the branding to facilitate a results-oriented organization chart that engages the end-user and aligns with the goals of the stakeholders in the process. Duh. Excuse me, I have three more meetings before lunch.

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:39 pm

Sounds like someone found the Dilbert mission statement generator.

scumdevils86 · Post by **scumdevils86** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:44 pm

azpenguin wrote:You simply just don't get it. These guys know how to vertically integrate the synergy of the branding to facilitate a results-oriented organization chart that engages the end-user and aligns with the goals of the stakeholders in the process. Duh. Excuse me, I have three more meetings before lunch.

mba speak.

hate it.

azthrillhouse · Post by **azthrillhouse** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:54 pm

azgreg wrote:Sounds like someone found the Dilbert mission statement generator.

azpenguin wrote:You simply just don't get it. These guys know how to vertically integrate the synergy of the branding to facilitate a results-oriented organization chart that engages the end-user and aligns with the goals of the stakeholders in the process. Duh. Excuse me, I have three more meetings before lunch.

scumdevils86 wrote: mba speak.

hate it.

Yup, Yup, and Yup. Unfortunately this seems to be the type of echo chamber that Larry lives in.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:32 pm

scumdevils86 wrote:mba speak.

hate it.

I hear it every day. Half the time I want go into my Method Man voice and say, "Hold up. Any of ya'll mothafuckas speakin' English? Do you want to buy my shit or not??"

azcat34 · Post by **azcat34** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 10:36 am

Maybe Larry will stop hating Arizona so much.

azthrillhouse · Post by **azthrillhouse** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:55 pm

Perhaps this belongs in the arch rivals section, but Bob Bowlsby is making Larry look competent by comparison.

Catstatic · Post by **Catstatic** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:26 pm

azcat34 wrote:Maybe Larry will stop hating Arizona so much.

What percent of that does Arizona get?

Go Cats!!

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:29 pm

Catstatic wrote:
azcat34 wrote:Maybe Larry will stop hating Arizona so much.

What percent of that does Arizona get?

Go Cats!!

I'm sure whatever it is, Larry has a scheme to use unprecedented fines to recoup it.

Gilbertcat · Post by **Gilbertcat** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 2:52 pm

I think its $4 million plus $2 million for the team's expenses. So I could be wrong but isnt the $4 million divided by 11 ($363,636 each) and I dont think AZ will use up all of the expense money since its a bus ride up. Possibly net $500,000 after expenses and assuming all the tickets will be sold?

Here is Boise's but I think they get an extra million as part of their contract to break from the Big East to go back to the MW:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/12/0 ... .html?rh=1

Machina · Post by **Machina** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:34 pm

Catstatic wrote:
azcat34 wrote:Maybe Larry will stop hating Arizona so much.

What percent of that does Arizona get?

Go Cats!!

Not sure what the new way is if it changed with the playoff, but before it would go to reimburse the participating school for expenses, and then it would be split 13 ways with the participating school getting 2/13ths while the other schools got 1/13th.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:47 pm

Boise State needs to sell $1.9M in tickets before they get a full payout. I imagine the UA has a similar deal.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/12/0 ... llion.html

With so many bowl games now, many schools lose money on bowl games and need the distribution from other bowls like the Fiesta to help recoup costs.

I imagine the UA lost money on the NM bowl.

Katzenfreund · Post by **Katzenfreund** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 7:22 am

Gilbertcat · Post by **Gilbertcat** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:31 am

I question the $300 a piece price. If the Fiesta is charging the school that much and both the School and the Fiesta are selling half of them for $150, then thats fuzzy math to start with.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 8:54 am

Since it's the PAC splits the money after expenses, maybe those ticket losses go against expenses.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:38 am

Ahh... amateur athletics...

azcat34 · Post by **azcat34** » Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:12 pm

Forcing the schools to buy 12,500 tickets at $300 apiece is still the biggest scam going.

It is always comical to see what these tickets go for on StubHub, can probably get a decent seat for $50.

Machina · Post by **Machina** » Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:21 pm

Every ticket on StubHub right now is above face value

And it is the Bowls that force the purchase (although not all are at $300 a piece, some are $75, some are $150, some are $255 and some are $300) of tickets to the participating schools.

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:02 pm

I wouldn't pay that to see a bowl game that all in all, means squat.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:42 pm

Not in attendance because . . . I don't know. Maybe he's just a fucking asshole.

catgrad97 · Post by **catgrad97** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:46 pm

Because of the high caliber of conference officiating.

Miller starting to make Scott look really bad, especially with three more wins next week.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 4:53 pm

He sure made sure to be at ucla a couple years ago though

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 5:08 pm

Larry Scott is a fucking asshole cunt. Please excuse my language. We just have to win the pac tourney

Katzenfreund · Post by **Katzenfreund** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 5:34 pm

Olsondogg · Post by **Olsondogg** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 5:45 pm

I dont' really give a shit if Larry ever attends a game or is there to touch our trophy. He can continue to sit in his ivory tower, stroking his kitty cat. Fuck him.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:03 pm

Me and you ODogg, we can tell Larry to fuck[spoiler=][/spoiler] off.

Oh and by the way, he never attends AZ BALL games

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:56 pm

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... -analysis/

Starting with the 2017-18 academic year, when the Big Ten’s new Tier 1 deal kicks in, there could be an $8 million – $10 million disparity in TV-related income per school.

My estimates:

SEC: $35.6 million
Big Ten: $33 million
Pac-12: $22.95 million

Again, those are per-school, per-year figures.

Over a five-year span, for instance, that would equate to $500+ million difference in conference-wide disbursements between the Big Ten and the Pac-12.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... ney-again/

The problem is the Pac-12 Networks. Where the SEC (quite successfully) partnered with ESPN and the Big Ten went in with Fox, the Pac-12 has financed its networks completely on its own. This would leave the conference to strike it rich if Pac-12 Networks somehow discovered the college sports version of The Walking Dead, but for now it’s only the first side of the risk/reward quandary.

For example, by 2017-18 Wilner projects the Pac-12 Networks to distribute $1 million a year, but the conference’s 12 schools will still have to cut a $750,000 check to buy back the content that the conference needed to start a network in the first place. All told, that leaves $250,000 per school on average, or the going rate for your typical linebackers coach these days.

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:06 pm

Seriously, the chancellors need to get together and send this Scott out on his ass.

Terrible that no one on the Eastern Seaboard away from their home can see Pac-12 ball.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:17 pm

Yup. Unless you have dish or a few few selected cable companies and live east of the Mississippi...no one is ever watching Pac 12 football or basketball. Without a better tv deal Arizona is going to always be an overlooked afterthought in basketball unless we win a couple titles or go to a couple final fours.

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:24 pm

I love when I'm watching the PAC-12 Network in standard definition and they say, "brought to you in High Definition". Yeah, if you live in one of a few selected markets. Otherwise if you love in a tiny little market like say Chicago, you can only watch it in SD like its 1996.

Wasn't it Salty who defended Larry Scott at every turn? Hilarious...

BearDown89 · Post by **BearDown89** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:35 am

Larry's in at #6 on this list of the 25 most influential people in college sports.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... ege-sports

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:08 pm

Doesn't mean he is doing a good job other than at duping people

UALoco · Post by **UALoco** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:18 pm

I'm not defending Scott but we can't expect to compare P12's TV deals against the B10's and SEC's. They have larger, more rabid fan bases which gives the conferences the bargaining power against the tv networks, the programmers, and advertisers. I don't have any fancy numbers to throw at that and I am not going to do any research, it just seems like common sense.

UALoco · Post by **UALoco** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:26 pm

UALoco wrote:I'm not defending Scott but we can't expect to compare P12's TV deals against the B10's and SEC's. They have larger, more rabid fan bases which gives the conferences the bargaining power against the tv networks, the programmers, and advertisers. I don't have any fancy numbers to throw at that and I am not going to do any research, it just seems like common sense.

I lied. Here are some attendance figures. I understand this reports the folks that attended the games, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say the TV viewing audience is proportional. See page 4 for the breakdown by conference.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_ ... e/2014.pdf

ASUCatFan · Post by **ASUCatFan** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:27 pm

UALoco wrote:
UALoco wrote:I'm not defending Scott but we can't expect to compare P12's TV deals against the B10's and SEC's. They have larger, more rabid fan bases which gives the conferences the bargaining power against the tv networks, the programmers, and advertisers. I don't have any fancy numbers to throw at that and I am not going to do any research, it just seems like common sense.
I lied. Here are some attendance figures. I understand this reports the folks that attended the games, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say the TV viewing audience is proportional. See page 4 for the breakdown by conference.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_ ... e/2014.pdf

I imagine those numbers have a lot to do with stadium size. The B1G, for example, has the three largest stadiums in the country (for any sport at any level) for Football. The next four largest college Football stadiums hold SEC teams, followed by Texas and then USC. UCLA is two spots down from USC, but then there is a pretty large drop off before you hit the next biggest stadium in the Pac-12.

I do think people in the South and the Midwest are a bit more football crazy than people in the West, but attendance isn't an apples to apples comparison.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:11 pm

Those numbers in my mind don't mean dick. His handling of the high cost network and lack of working a deal with direct TV shows poor business sense at this point.his promise of big dollars has been a bag of magic beans (almost quoting GB verbatum)

Other then opening game windows to sell off games to other networks and moving the bball tourney to Vegas (A no brainer) I just dont think he has done shit. Big whoop, Utah and CU.

Sage&Silver · Post by **Sage&Silver** » Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:45 pm

ASUCatFan wrote:
UALoco wrote:
UALoco wrote:I'm not defending Scott but we can't expect to compare P12's TV deals against the B10's and SEC's. They have larger, more rabid fan bases which gives the conferences the bargaining power against the tv networks, the programmers, and advertisers. I don't have any fancy numbers to throw at that and I am not going to do any research, it just seems like common sense.
I lied. Here are some attendance figures. I understand this reports the folks that attended the games, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say the TV viewing audience is proportional. See page 4 for the breakdown by conference.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_ ... e/2014.pdf

I imagine those numbers have a lot to do with stadium size. The B1G, for example, has the three largest stadiums in the country (for any sport at any level) for Football. The next four largest college Football stadiums hold SEC teams, followed by Texas and then USC. UCLA is two spots down from USC, but then there is a pretty large drop off before you hit the next biggest stadium in the Pac-12.

I do think people in the South and the Midwest are a bit more football crazy than people in the West, but attendance isn't an apples to apples comparison.

Stadium size doesn't drive fan interest; stadium size is generally a reflection of it.

ASU and Stanford had big stadiums they could never fill, so they downsized.

UALoco · Post by **UALoco** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 8:44 pm

Sage&Silver wrote:
ASUCatFan wrote:
UALoco wrote:
UALoco wrote:I'm not defending Scott but we can't expect to compare P12's TV deals against the B10's and SEC's. They have larger, more rabid fan bases which gives the conferences the bargaining power against the tv networks, the programmers, and advertisers. I don't have any fancy numbers to throw at that and I am not going to do any research, it just seems like common sense.
I lied. Here are some attendance figures. I understand this reports the folks that attended the games, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say the TV viewing audience is proportional. See page 4 for the breakdown by conference.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_ ... e/2014.pdf

I imagine those numbers have a lot to do with stadium size. The B1G, for example, has the three largest stadiums in the country (for any sport at any level) for Football. The next four largest college Football stadiums hold SEC teams, followed by Texas and then USC. UCLA is two spots down from USC, but then there is a pretty large drop off before you hit the next biggest stadium in the Pac-12.

I do think people in the South and the Midwest are a bit more football crazy than people in the West, but attendance isn't an apples to apples comparison.
Stadium size doesn't drive fan interest; stadium size is generally a reflection of it.

ASU and Stanford had big stadiums they could never fill, so they downsized.

My thought exactly, those stadiums didn't start with the ability to hold 100k fans..the schools added to them when they knew there was the demand. Demand, and therefore those numbers, mean everything. Didn't Arizona Stadium lose some capacity with the NEZ project? I think I read that somewhere.

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:09 pm

U$C and UCLA's stadiums weren't built specifically for their respective football teams, so the size of their stadiums is not a necessarily a reflection of their fan interest. The Coliseum was built as a memorial and multi-use stadium and then expanded for the 1932 Olympics and through the years to also support hosting professional football/MLB baseball/1984 Olympics/etc. UCLA didn't even start playing in the Rose Bowl until 1982 when they left the Coliseum.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:59 am

Build it and they will come.

Sage&Silver · Post by **Sage&Silver** » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:48 am

UAEebs86 wrote:U$C and UCLA's stadiums weren't built specifically for their respective football teams, so the size of their stadiums is not a necessarily a reflection of their fan interest. The Coliseum was built as a memorial and multi-use stadium and then expanded for the 1932 Olympics and through the years to also support hosting professional football/MLB baseball/1984 Olympics/etc. UCLA didn't even start playing in the Rose Bowl until 1982 when they left the Coliseum.

Which reinforces Loco's point. Even the two larges stadiums in the PAC weren't built to accommodate the fans of their current tenants. While USC filled the coliseum in the Pete Carrol era, I wonder if an NFL team or two will keep them down at their current numbers from here on out.

Login • Register