Jul 27th, 2010
Uh, folks, can I have your attention? I am sure everyone here is aware that my name is Larry Scott, and I called this gathering of the conference ADs so we can begin the discussion about how we’re going to align the conference next year when Colorado and Utah join us for what I believe will create a golden opportunity for increased marketing opportunities. That’s what you people hired me for, right? To market this conference, make people aware that we exist out here, right?
Well, I brought in two more schools just so we can have a conference championship game in football, so, gosh darn it, we’re going to divide this conference into two six-team divisions so we have that championship game, maybe call it the iPod Pac-12 championship game presented by Arrowhead Spring Mountain Water and the Pacific Rod and Gun Club.
Anyway, we’re here in Los Angeles, ready to tackle this issue, which, to be quite honest, I never realized would be such a big deal until I found out that a lot of you did not like some of the things I told the Colorado AD.
Don’t look at me like that. I’m from the East. I went to an Ivy League school. How was I supposed to know the significance of the USC-UCLA thing?
OK, just to get things started, let’s have a show of hands: Who would not mind being in a division that does not include USC and UCLA? Don’t be afraid, raise ‘em high.
No one? Hmmm.
All right, who absolutely insists on being in the division with USC and UCLA?
OK, you can all put your hands down. There’s no contest to see who can reach the highest. And we don’t need sound effects either.
Folks, you understand that not everyone can be in the same division as the L.A. schools, right? We have to think about what is best for the conference.
OK, so which of you can live with being in a division that does not have the L.A. schools?
C’mon, someone has to be first.
Let me put in this way then. Which of you could remain quiet and not complain to the media if you were assigned to the non-L.A. division?
Ah, finally, one hand. Who is that in the back? Oh, it’s Utah.
Yeah, Larry, we just want to be a part of this conference. Whatever it takes, Larry baby. Although if we had our choice we’d like to be with USC and UCLA too.
Palin: There's more to an argument than saying, "No, it isn't." Cleese: No, there isn't. Larry Scott may find himself in that kind of discussion.
Yeah, fine. Let me try it this way. Which would accept assignment to the non-L.A. division if I started a promotional campaign to tell the world how great and magnanimous your school is. I can make the world believe anything, you know. How many would go for that? Raise ‘em high.
Uh, Utah, you can put your hand down. We know where you stand.
Nobody else? Geez. Would some of you rather leave the conference than be in a division without USC and UCLA?
You can all stop nodding now. It was supposed to be a rhetorical question.
All right, I understand that having UCLA and USC on your schedule every year bumps up your revenue for those home games and that traveling to L.A. helps recruiting, but let’s be reasonable about this.
OK, how about this. Let’s go around the room and you tell me why your school should be grouped with USC and UCLA.
We can skip Utah.
Colorado, state your case.
Uh, Larry, you assured us we would be in the division with USC and UCLA. That was part of the agreement, and we took you at your word. Without that guarantee, maybe we’d have stayed in the Big 12. You’re not going back out of the deal, are you? Only a weasel would renege on a handshake agreement like that.
Gulp.
Uh, OK, what about you there, Arizona State?
Well, I am sure I speak for Arizona when I say it makes no geographic sense to separate the Arizona schools from the L.A. schools. We are clearly the four most southern schools, so how could you put us in differetn divisions? You’re not going to put us with the Oregon and Washington schools, are you? People in the East would have a field day with that move.
Well, yeah, it’s hard to argue that.
Let’s hear from the four Pacific Northwest schools. Washington, you be the spokesman.
All four of us were in this conference since USC joined in 1922. We have developed that tradition, and we rely on that tradition. We have made the conference what it is. You’re not going to ignore all that and let the two newcomers and the two Arizona schools, who were not part of the Pac-8, reap all the benefits from this expansion, are you?
Yes, uh, I can appreciate that sentiment.
Let’s here what the Bay Area schools have to say. Cal, you speak for you and Stanford.
This seems like a no-brainer from here. You have to keep the four California schools in the same division, right? We were in the conference when USC joined, too. And we are a UC school like UCLA, so we have to be lumped together. And nobody relies more heavily on the revenue from home games against the L.A. school than us. Besides all that, there is only one logical alignment plan geographically, and that’s to put us in the same division with USC, UCLA and the Arizona schools. Take a look at a map, Larry. Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona and Arizona State are the six southern-most schools in the conference. Colorado, Utah and the Northwest schools are all north of us. And since all we’ve been hearing is that the conference will be split into a North and South Division, how can you divide it any other way?
Point taken.
Uh, Utah, do you have anything to add?
We’re just happy to be here, Larry.
Thanks.
This is not going to be easy. Maybe I should have stuck with women’s tennis. Equal prize money and some discrimination issues in the Middle East were all I had to deal with. And I had public sentiment on my side in both cases. Every Pac-10 region seems to be against me on this.
How about this? Let’s get a show of hands of people who would be willing to listen to an arbitrator?
Utah, you can put your hand down.
No one else? Where’s the conference unity? All for one, one for all. The future of the Pac-10 – or whatever we call it – is what really matters here, right? If we all stick together and look out for one another, this expansion could mean a bunch of money for all of you. I just trucked all over the East Coast with your football coaches to get some media attention for the conferecne, and I had to almost get down on my knees and beg those coaches to do it.
Now, who is willing to budge just a bit for the greater good of the conference?
Utah, put your hand down. And keep it down, goddammit.
Your column highlights the reasons why static division alignments are less than satisfactory. No one wants to be in a division that does not contain the LA schools.
Similarly, very few are willing to be in a Zipper Division without USC. That's because USC improves ticket sales when they're on the road to other Pac-10 venues.
What to do? Rotate the division alignments in an ordered, predictable method: Dynamic Division Alignment. The model I've got in mind will guarantee the annual renewal of traditional rivalries (i.e., the Oregon & OSU vs. Washington & WSU; Arizona & ASU vs. Colorado & Utah; Cal & Stanford vs. UCLA & USC) while also ensuring that every school located outside of California visits AND hosts an LA school 6 years out of 8.
I'd expound a bit more, but I don't want to hog bandwidth.
http://www.kobobooks.com/user/diabetesmedicine/pr…
carrier air conditioner review
potencja, check my site.