In the narrow context of 2020, there is a certain degree of logic in the Pac-12’s plan to adopt a conference-only schedule, which was announced Friday afternoon:
Conference only football for the Pac-12 this fall. We all knew it was coming. Still sucks. pic.twitter.com/GHe1JWqqTR
— Matt Prehm (@MattPrehm) July 10, 2020
It is certainly a good thing to have more streamlined game operations and not have to deal with the logistical complexities of working outside the conference when staging games, if they are able to be played this fall. Jon Wilner was a step ahead — as he often is — when he outlined an all-conference-game plan for the Pac-12 several days ago.
It is true that this movement toward conference-only schedules reflects a lack of leadership and a distaste for governance and oversight, as though the logistical challenges are too overwhelming to face in a pandemic. In a better, healthier, more functioning society, these problems shouldn’t be so puzzling or difficult. Yet, in 2020, they are… so this is what we get.
We can all acknowledge that a conference-only schedule is hardly satisfying, and that it represents a less-than-complete solution to everything happening in college football right now. We can also acknowledge that if a conference-only plan is what enables us to have ANY college football at all in the coming months, well…
… that’s a lot better than any alternatives the Power Five conferences view as less workable.
In a bad situation, an imperfect plan should not come as a surprise. College football — which isn’t even assured any game will be played (we’re all stumbling in the dark right now if we are being honest with ourselves and each other) — is trying to swim across a fast-moving river at night. Merely getting to the opposite riverbank would rate as an achievement. So, for 2020, this conference-only plan, while not great, isn’t terrible… certainly not if it allows for some games to be played and some TV money to be collected by the Pac-12.
However, if this is okay as a temporary plan in a moment of crisis, it certainly elicits questions for the future of the Pac-12, which begins with one obvious question: Should Larry Scott be the person who leads the conference after the pandemic?
It is hard to see how the answer could possibly be yes.
We’re not going to revisit or relitigate Scott’s tenure. It is simpler — and much more to the point — to say that Scott’s biggest initiatives such as the Pac-12 Network have not fetched the revenues needed to keep up with other Power Five conferences. The conference’s methods have not served it well, relative to the College Football Playoff. Officiating, game scheduling, and other basic practices are not up to professional standards. A pandemic — with the cost-conscious moves it requires — invites this obvious thought which should make ample sense to school presidents throughout the conference:
Why pay Larry Scott his large salary to run the league when another person would be willing to do the job for a lot less money?
A follow-up question: If the whole point of the Pac-12 Network was that the conference owned it in full, such that future profits would flow to the league and not be shared by outside entities, should there be a commissioner at all, at least in the next few years of pandemic-related uncertainty?
This is a time for the Pac-12 to be creative and aggressive in the pursuit of cost savings. Getting a commissioner on a lower pay scale, or considering a different (or temporary) model of governance to save millions of dollars during a pandemic, would seem to be legitimate lines of exploration for school presidents.
In addition to cost savings, of course, the league also needs to figure out how to maximize revenues. Getting into the College Football Playoff is one main way to do this.
The Pac-12 ought to be pounding the table and insisting on tearing up the current playoff contract, so that — in a pandemic — new revenue streams can be created by a six- or eight-team playoff.
The Pac-12 also should reconsider the wisdom of its nine-game league schedule. Why have one more conference game than the ACC and SEC? Why not increase the odds that a conference champion will be 12-1 instead of 11-2, which is often the difference between making the playoff and not getting there?
The Pac-12 offered a temporary solution to 2020 with its conference-only schedule. Fine… but no one should think this is a complete response to much bigger problems. What about the long-term vision for this conference? That is the most important question which needs to be asked in Pac-12 positions of power, chiefly by the school presidents who have a lot of very important decisions to make in the near future.