Read before voting.
PROS:
Larry Scott:
1. Expanded the Pac-12 after the previous commissioner, Tom Hansen, refused to for multiple years. Scott, shortly after taking over, initially targeted the top-tier Big 12 schools, including Texas and Oklahoma, in a move that would have truly created the first major super conference. This fell through, but Scott was able to land Colorado and Utah at the time.
2. In 2011, he negotiated, at the time,
the biggest media deal in college athletics history. It quickly erased the financial gap the Pac-12 was experiencing with other leagues and set the tone for other mega-deals that would come.
3. Orchestrated the creation of the Pac-12 Networks, with a highly professional staff at a time where conferences were struggling creating their own conference networks (the Big 12 would never be able to create one - while the ACC came much later).
4. Okay. That's all I've got.
George Kliavkoff:
1. Realized it was way too expensive to keep the Pac-12 offices in San Francisco and decided to ...
relocate them to another Bay Area city, San Ramon. Which is still extremely expensive.
2, I can't think of anything else.
CONS:
Larry Scott:
1. Was clearly financially inept - not only with the Comcast revelations but in overall salary. The Pac-12 paid this guy top dollar and got very little top-level results.
2. He failed, over and over, to get better distribution for the Pac-12 Networks nationally - and it ultimately turned into a headache for the conference.
3. In 2011, Scott was the final nail in the coffin of expansion, as Texas and Oklahoma were rumored (again) to be Pac-12 bound. This time,
he told the schools he did not support expansion (to play devil's advocate, Scott couldn't get reassurance from Texas to accept equal revenue-sharing + giving up the Longhorn Network - but still, what if...).
4. His poor leadership and decision making led USC and UCLA to bolt for the Big 10, creating this mess to begin with.
George Kliavkoff:
1. Failed to use his power as commissioner, and therefore the influence he had in such a role, to convince the Pac-12 presidents to support expansion after Texas and Oklahoma left for the SEC. There was a fifteen-minute attempt, with three presidents and three athletic directors, to discuss potentially raiding the Big 12. USC was seemingly confused why they were looking to expand, wasn't receptive in the early minutes of the meeting and the idea was scuttled before Kliavkoff announced the Pac-12 was not going to expand. There was very little attempt, according to reports, from his side to persuade the schools to expand. It was pretty much a halfhearted attempt to see if there was interest. At the time, I think most felt okay with it - but in hindsight, it was a very shortsighted move.
2. Was seemingly blindsided by USC and UCLA leaving - this after striking a partnership deal with the Big 10 and ACC. It makes you wonder how well he's communicating with the schools when something like this happens (we'll see this show up again).
3. Completely cut-off the
Big 12 from a partnership because, to quote, "the Big 12 media rights can't be negotiated until 2024, Pac-12 schools have no motivation to join the Big 12," which turned out to be a miscalculation because...
4. Misjudged the Big 12 by assuming they would take their media deal to the market in 2024, and therefore set the market price that the Pac-12 could then exceed, while also giving the Pac-12 a near-year head start over the Big 12 on signing a new media deal. Except Yormark decided to keep with the same partners and negotiated what was likely a smaller overall price, capping what the Pac-12 was likely to make, and of course, having a deal done long before the Pac-12 could even get into the final stages of negotiations for theirs.
4. Despite beginning the media negotiations last summer, the Pac-12 continually struggled finding a deal that was suitable to sign - and a process that was supposed to wrap up in December, pushed through into January and February and then March and now, almost a year after beginning the process, a deal still hasn't been struck which has led to...
5. Colorado leaving for the Big 12. An absolute indictment of the current conference, and its leadership, especially since Colorado is apparently blaming instability, which is directly linked to the fact they still don't have a deal. On top of that, once again, Kliavkoff looks blindsided by this move - as just the other day, he was openly saying no Pac-12 team was jumping.
Who's worse?
Things to factor:
Scott did some very good things early on. It's just that everything after 2011 was one terrible misstep after another. Do his pros outweigh the cons? Absolutely not - they were devastating cons that will likely have a hand in the demise of the Pac-12.
Conversely, tho, Kliavkoff has barely any pros since taking over in 2021. He's seen three teams leave. A very muddled media deal negotiation (and that's putting it nicely) and the conference is far worse off, perception wise, than it was when he took over.
Still, his cons are probably not as devastating as Scott's as Scott's were so systemic overall.
But Scott did have some positives and I can't think of any from Kliavkoff at this moment.
So, who was worse?
utah.rivals.com