There are a number of interesting stories out today about where things stand with realignment.
While many of us wonder who will arrive in the Pac-12 the bigger question should be is expansion even wanted?
Wilner offer's up an interesting perspective...
On the topic of voting (nine CEOs must sign off on new members), it?s important to consider Scott?s management style.
Before coming to the Pac-12, which was then the Pac-10, he ran the Women?s Tennis Association ? an international organization of independent contractors with their own agendas.
Yes, he is bold and creative. But he?s also a pragmatist and a consensus builder.
He?s in regular communication with his CEOs, including ASU?s Michael Crow, chairman of the league?s executive group, and knows exactly what the presidents and chancellors want.
He?s not going to call for a vote on new members unless those new members agree in advance to work within the Pac-12?s framework.
For example: If Texas doesn?t agree to participate fully in the league?s revenue-sharing plan ? if Texas doesn?t agree to fold the Longhorn Network into the Pac-12 regional network structure ? if everyone isn?t on board with a 16-team division alignment ? then Scott isn?t going to bother asking for a vote on the Longhorns.
Makes pretty good sense.
Wilner has it pretty solid. Scott won't embarrass himself with either party. He won't bring expansion to a vote if Texas doesn't give up some concessions,on the flip side he won't ask for a vote if he has division amongst his conference CEO's...at least not until he has the votes in his pocket.
Scott is riding a wave, why waste political capital if don't already have the answer you want. He'll walk, just like he did last year and watch with amusement as the Big-12 explodes.
One other thing to consider...is Texas a good fit? It's not like they have been great conference partners in the past, why woul
No comments:
Post a Comment