|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
PACIFIC-12 CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME: OREGON v ARIZONADecember 5, 2014Larry ScottSANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA THE MODERATOR: Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for coming. Welcome to the 2014 Pac‑12 Championship game. I'm sure Larry Scott will give a brief opening statement and then open it up for questions. LARRY SCOTT: Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Great to be able to be here today for 2014 Pac‑12 Football Championship Game, our fourth championship game as a conference, and of course the first here at Levi's Stadium, first neutral site game after three years where we've played on campus. Want to thank the 49ers and city of Santa Clara for their partnership and doing a great job getting ready for this event. There is a lot of excitement around the game. We're expecting it to be a great success. Part of the rationale for entering into this partnership with the 49ers and playing here in the middle of Silicon Valley was to focus on innovation. This is the latest and greatest football stadium in the country, and there is a lot of excitement amongst our schools and our student‑athletes and our coaches about playing in a big‑time venue. We always envisioned our biggest event on the big stage, so thought this was a great opportunity in the first year of this new stadium, a stadium that's going to host the Super Bowl, to give our student‑athletes an opportunity to experience it. So we're looking forward to being here for three years. This is the first of three years. Probably the focus on innovation being here in Silicon Valley, which is the center of our conference, geographically, was to focus on everything that is happening in the world of sports and technology, and we had a chance yesterday to co‑host with the 49ers the first ever sports innovation and technology summit that we've done. We hope that this is something that we'll do annually. Focus on different aspects of what's happening at the intersection of sports and technology and innovation, as we in the conference focus on the fan experience, fan engagement and what the future holds in terms of how we interact with our fans. This game is the culmination of a great season for the conference. Arguably our conference has never been deeper or stronger than it is now. We had six teams in the top 25 much of the season, and as of the last ranking, we had six teams. We had eight teams qualify for bowls, so this represents really a great period for the Pac‑12 conference in terms of the depth and competitiveness. For those of you who had followed us during the year, there were a lot of competitive and very close games. I think you'd agree top to bottom, this conference is as strong as it's been ever and certainly in a long time. From the two teams that made it through, we've got a great match‑up. The only championship game featuring two top 10 teams this weekend. No. 2 Oregon against number 7, Arizona. Oregon is in the top four most of the year and Arizona successfully came through the juggernaut, which was the Pac‑12 South this year. As of the last ranking, five of the six teams in the Pac‑12 South are ranked in the top 25. So certainly right there with any division, if not the strongest division in college football this year. So quite a great accomplishment by Arizona. As a result, this game has tremendous meaning. It looks like it could be a play in game or a quarterfinal in the playoff which is pretty cool. First year of the new playoff. No one knew exactly what role these championship games would be. Certainly our conference is a great example of how winning your division really matters. It was right on the line right to the end of the season as to who was going to emerge from the Pac‑12 South and emerging as the champion of the division that has five of its six teams in the top 25, a pretty major accomplishment. And the fact that this game could well launch a team into the new four‑team playoff is pretty cool and pretty exciting. We're delighted this is two top 10 teams with so much on the line in this new great venue, and hopefully it portends well for our three‑year partnership here. For that, thank you all for being here and your support of the conference throughout the year. Happy to answer any questions anyone's got. Q. Knowing Oregon has a chance to get to the Final Four, so to speak, is it hard not to pull for them for the conference? LARRY SCOTT: I love all my children the same. That's what I say at home and that's what I say in the conference office. No, I actually think we are in a unique situation. I think we may be the only game in the country where the winner of the game has a realistic shot to be in the playoff regardless of how it goes. I actually think I may be in a different position than some of my colleagues in the other conferences. Obviously, Oregon being number two in the country would have a strong argument to be the No. 1 seed in the playoff if they were to win this game, given their resume and having another win in the championship game over a top 10 team. I think Arizona would have a very strong case regardless what happens anywhere. Keep in mind the strength of schedule is something that's been emphasized heavily to the committee and by the committee this year. We're the only conference that's got nine conference games plus the championship game. The fact that sometimes has been controversial in our conference. Some have argued maybe we shouldn't play such a tough schedule. But I've heralded the fact that I believe in this new era of a playoff. You'll be rewarded more times than not for playing the toughest possible schedule. As a conference, we were 10‑3 against other Big 5 conference opponents and Notre Dame, if you include them, our conference overall would have been nine games plus a championship game. I think we can say that the champion of the Pac‑12 will have had the toughest road to a conference championship of anyone in the country. I think we can make a factual statement there. Given that fact, given the fact that they would have won arguably the toughest division in college football in the Pac‑12 south, and given the fact if they win tonight they would have two wins over a top 5 team this year, I don't think there is any other team in the country that's got two wins over a top 5 team during the regular season. So I feel very comfortable that the resume of either the team that wins tonight is incredibly strong. Q. If Arizona does win, how much campaigning or lobbying will be offered here until selection? LARRY SCOTT: We will not do any. I think the fair and disciplined process that was set‑up for interaction with the committee. So myself, and the conference office had three calls with members of the committee during the season. Each conference has two members of the committee assigned to it. We had the last of those calls this week. We had ample opportunity to talk to the committee, give them our point of view on how our schools are backed up. Sure, it would be factual information like injuries and injuries that might have played into a loss at a particular time. So in the case of Oregon, for example, we would have talked about Jake Fisher being out when they lost to Arizona in that first game and there's been a noticeable difference in Oregon's offensive line, for example, since he came back. They have the right tackle back as well. In the case of Arizona, one of their two losses to top 25 teams came against USC. I think they had the two running backs out plus a lineman, if I'm not mistaken. So that's the type of factual information as well as perspectively the opportunity to share, but that's all behind us. It's been done. There is going to be no contact with the committee from this point forward. Q. Before you got here, the early days of the BCS, it would seem to have not operated very well. The commissioner changed it. What is the protocol for deciding what kind of job the Selection Committee does this year and how we all go about it? I assume it would be the five of you or all the commissioners? LARRY SCOTT: Yeah, I serve on the management committee of the College Football Playoff along with my colleagues from the nine other FBS conferences and Notre Dame athletics director. We set the policy and appointed this Selection Committee, gave them their marching orders. They've carried out their mission with a tremendous amount of diligence, credibility, integrity, and transparency. I think everyone's been impressed with the job Jeff Long has done getting up there so many times during the season. After their standing, that's a tough position to be in. With everyone hanging on every word and trying to read nuisance into it. I think what everyone can tell is there is a heavy influence based on wanting to be transparent and wanting to be out there. I think we feel good about it. After the season is over, I'm sure Bill Hancock will come to us with his evaluation. He'll have his thoughts. We'll have our point of view, we'll discuss it and debate it, and if there are changes to be made, we'll do that in the regular course of our meetings in the spring. In terms of the committee members themselves, no one had less than a two‑year term, and then we staggered it, so there won't be any changes to the committee itself. Q. I'm just curious, not more than one somebody, but how do you delineate between structural flaws and sour grapes? LARRY SCOTT: I don't think there will be a lot of tolerance for sour grapes. We all went into it‑‑ everyone can do the math. Four slots and five big conferences, and beyond the five big conferences there are other strong teams. So any belly aching about not getting in, I don't think people are going to react to that. We went into it expecting it to be controversial, expecting at least one conference to be on the outside looking in. At least one of the five will be on the outside looking in, and there would be essentially a subjective process, and we put the human element into it. So managing expectations among the commission group, everyone knew what we were signing up for. We knew there would be controversy, and one of our colleagues would be put in a tough position of not having a team in. So that in itself I don't think it going to cause much discussion at all. Q. The way college football has worked for a lot of years, fans are conditioned (No microphone). An Arizona win tonight, they would have to in one week's time jump a number of teams and presumably jump teams that have an extra loss record. What makes you feel confident that committee would be able to make that move even if it may be the right move but historically not something people are used to? LARRY SCOTT: That's a great question. I think if you look at what the committee has done so far, and what they've said about what they've done so far, it's a very stark departure in my view from the way the BCS was working before, which tended, frankly, to track the won‑loss record. But there have been several things that we've seen that are quite different. You look at Florida State. The only undefeated. In the old system I suspect Florida State would be one or two because they came from a Big 5 conference, they're undefeated and I think that was expected. You say that's not the case. You look at the debate about TCU and Baylor. Under the old BCS system, I don't think you'd see such a gap probably between these two teams. And reportedly, the explanation that I've heard or inferred the explanation is they're watching the games. It's not just about the won/loss record on paper. They're actually watching the games and trying to determine who are the best teams. They're actually evaluating the quality of the wins in a way I don't think the BCS system did. They're trying to value strength of schedule. Keep in mind what we haven't seen yet because it's not relevant until this week is the value of winning a conference championship. That has been the top criteria, frankly, that the committee has been given. To value when trying to distinguish among similar teams. So I think those of us that felt strongly there should be a human committee because we wanted it to operate differently with more scrutiny, more rigor, more analysis, more diligence, I think is very pleased because using those signals that have happened during the season. That's what gives me confidence to say it's not just going to go by won/loss record at the end of the season. Q. How do you feel the Pac‑12 has been treated by the committee so far? LARRY SCOTT: I think fairly. We had real issues, not just our conference, but others too with the old system and the coaches' poll as an example. The media poll as well, though I'll go light on you guys tonight since you're sitting in front of me. But coaches' poll is an example. Not a lot of coaches watching other teams on Saturday, and I don't think they were spending a lot of time watching video of other games Saturday night and Sunday. In fact, I'm confident. At least I'll speak for our conference. I know our coaches weren't doing that, and many of them were delegating it to assistants and directors of football operations. I think a lot of people were going off reputation and what they may be reading. And I think the AP poll to an extent and the Harris poll, there is probably some of that as well. I think as a result, that hurt the Pac‑12, given the time zones and the lack of media concentration on the west coast. We played to our advantage in more subjective polls. I think the fact the committee is actually watching the games, watching all the games, monitoring, looking at a lot of stats and data has played to our advantage, because I think there has been a sense that the conference hasn't gotten the respect it deserves. Historically, it's been underappreciated for its depth, and I think that's coming to light in, I think, probably almost every week the Selection Committee's position of the Pac‑12 has been stronger than the Coaches' poll, and the AP poll, and that's indicative of the dynamics that we've talked about. Q. Do you have a problem with (No microphone) five different ways to determine their champion? Do you think that thought (No microphone). You get five conference champions, you can do your conference anyway you want? LARRY SCOTT: First of all, I would absolutely like to see the race run over a similar course for every conference. By that, I mean, I'd like to see every conference play the same number of conference games. I'd like to see teams in every conference play similar caliber, non‑conference competition. Right now it's all over the map. I think right now it could work to our advantage because we've determined we want the strongest schedule. It might burn us in certain years, but I've been out there, and our schools have been out there saying we're going to continue scheduling tough. We're going to do the nine conference games plus the championship game. And if that's one more conference game than anyone else and one more opportunity to lose to a tough team, so be it. I think we'll be rewarded for that when we're being stacked up against other teams with similar records. But in fairness, I think this would be a better system if everyone played either eight or nine conference games, whatever it would be, plus a championship game. I think, yeah, that would be more fair. For a variety of reasons we don't think going to an eight‑team playoff is the right move right now. That was heavily debated at the time. I'm sure it's going to be a lot of discussion. I'm sure there will be a lot of pressure to move in that direction. But for the variety of reasons, including the length of the season, the number of games the student‑athletes have played, the role of the championship games, TV contracts, bowls, I think that's going to be a while until that would get any serious conversation. But I know that seems like it might be the easy default position. Each of five conferences gets their conference champion in, and you have three at‑large teams. It would be a nice, tidy solution, but there are a lot of implications that take some time to sort out. I think the other thing that requires some thought is what would be the impact on the regular season. And this regular season, I think, has been the most dramatic of any in part because of the playoff and the implications. You know, I think about this championship game that we're about to kickoff, and I think about other championship games, and I'm not sure they would have a lot of implication on the one getting a slot, on the other hand it might take something away. They always throw in (Indiscernible) games right now, and the conference could be on the outside looking in. In the regular season, this year from my perspective has been a continuation of some of the positive impact of the BCS which helped transition college football from regional interest to truly national interest. If you had a care of what was going on in different parts of the country, it was even more so from my perspective. I think college football became more of a national phenomenon this year because everyone was paying that much more attention to what was going on in the rest of the country. If you know you're guaranteed a spot for your conference champion in the playoffs, you care less about what's going on in other parts of the country. Doesn't matter so much in the Pac‑12. What's going to happen in the Big 12 tomorrow? What's going to happen in the Big 10 tomorrow? There is some, I don't want to overdramatize it, because I haven't thought about it that much, but I could see some flow on effect in terms of taking away some interest in the regular season. But it hasn't been discussed because it was heavily debated and we settled on four. I'd be surprised if it's something that gets discussed within the next few years. But I know there will be a lot of public pressure for it. Q. Will you have any recommendations for next year? Is there anything going on now that you've seen this year that you already know here's something we should change for next year? LARRY SCOTT: Nothing on the top of my mind right now. We'll sit down with our team at the end of the season, talk to our coaches, talk to our athletic directors, talk to a representative on the committee. We'll think about that. Nothing has jumped out at me. I think for the first year, I think this year everyone's pretty darn pleased with the way it's gone. Q. How were you guys tied to the nine‑game schedule, and if you discussed moving on eight, what would that process be like? LARRY SCOTT: That's our position and it's not something that's necessarily up for renewal or anything like that. We've played this way since we started the championship game, for a variety of reasons. I won't go into them right now. Something that's come up every spring, every time we get together with our coaches. I think annually it comes up there is some question whether we're making right move or not. And the question came up again with some healthy discussion this past spring as we were pivoting from the BCS to the College Football Playoff. We really didn't make up the right move, because if you take out the playoff and the BCS prior to that, there are a lot of reasons our schools like the nine games. They like to play against each other more often. When we moved from a 10‑team conference to a 12‑team conference, one of the implications of that was you missed some teams in the conference. Teams enjoy going to LA every year, so there are some misses that people don't like, and they want to play each other as much as possible. So we wanted to preserve that. It was my belief that it will benefit us. Doesn't mean it won't hurt us over the years, but more it will help us more than it will hurt us. But I've said to our coaches and our athletic administrators, we'll learn a lot during the first year. We'll keep discussing it every year. In terms of the process it would take, I have to discuss it with our coaches and athletics directors, I'd have to make a recommendations to our presidents. Q. Two teams, Arizona and Baylor in a run for the playoff and played pretty weak non‑conference schedules. Is there any concern with the committee or the commissioners that one of those teams in the playoffs could set a bad precedent for future scheduling? LARRY SCOTT: The commissioners have been really clear with the committee that we want to value strength of schedule, want to value being a conference champion, want to value head‑to‑head as determining factors, with winning your conference championship being the most important. So those factors kick in when you're evaluating teams that the committee thinks are comparable. If teams aren't comparable, then they don't really kick in. So I think in Arizona's case, I don't really want to speak of another team outside our conference, but in Arizona's case it's heavily mitigated by the division that they were in. They had to play‑‑ I think they played six top‑25 teams this year. They won a division with five top‑25 teams, plus they have the conference game, that the Big 12 would have, for example. Because they play nine games, we play nine games, we have the champion on top. They will have played a top‑5 team twice in Oregon. So I think there is, if you look at the overall body of work, the overall resume, at least in Arizona's case, I don't think people would quibble with the strength of their schedule. Q. The championship being the primary factor, is (No microphone)? LARRY SCOTT: I can't say we've had any discussion as the commissioner in terms of how you deal with that situation. It's going to be left up to the committee as to how they want to interpret that. I imagine that might be one of the topics that rises to our agenda for the spring. It was a situation we didn't necessarily envision. What instruction do we want to give to the committee about how to deal with that? Q. Everyone's talking about the playoff, but there are a variety of major bowl games that can be a financial limbo. How much are you paying attention to the idea that you could place two teams in these major bowl games, which would obviously be good for the conference? LARRY SCOTT: It's absolutely been a focus. I'd say there have been three lenses that we brought to thinking about this, at least in terms of the committee and the work they have to do. The committee's job is to first decide who are the top four and then seed them to determine the match‑ups and place those teams. Their second role has been to look host schools. I think this year I'm not sure what the exact ranking cut is going to be, but top 10, top 12, it's somewhere in there that's going to determine year‑in, year‑out who is going to be in those host schools with another lens that we've been looking at it from and discussing with a committee, which teams do we think are top 10 worthy, if you will. And then the third is top 25, because that is the rankings they do every week, and that will impact other bowls and other assignments. So those are kind of the three discussions that we've been looking at. Q. Some of the natural numbers are down, (No microphone). In your mind, if people are watching those networks, does it also equal (No microphone)? LARRY SCOTT: Definitely more fragmentation going on in the world of media. With the launch of networks, you're going to fragment the audience. But I would be surprised to find on a cumulative basis, and I haven't looked at the stats, I'm not sure, but I'd be surprised if on a cumulative eyeballs basis there are more eyeballs watching college football this season than in prior seasons. Q. With what you've seen, would you recommend that the committee next year do the rankings on a weekly basis again? LARRY SCOTT: I think it would be a great topic of conversation. It was heavily debated. On one end of the spectrum, do they just do the grand unveil one time on the Sunday, or do you try to provide a bridge from the way it used to work with the BCS until now and signal and provide some transparency along the way? I think that's absolutely something we'll discuss. Did we get it right? Should the committee have less rankings and less frequency? I haven't determined my point of view on that or our conference's point of view on that yet. My sense is that the first year of a new system it was probably appreciated. I think what we hoped for happened, which is there was a very clear pivot from the coaches poll, and the AP poll to what is the official ranking, and what talking heads on TV are saying to what the committee is saying. All of a sudden everybody started reacting to what the committee was saying. I think that was a positive and healthy thing. The fact that Jeff Long had to get up for seven weeks in a row Sunday and explain the methodology and explain the conditions, and managed expectations and those are some of the underlying rationales for why we wanted them to do it. I think in the first year it was particularly important. I think the discussion is now we've gotten to the first year and people understand better how the system is working is a little better. Not that I think it should happen more often, but I'll be curious to see what people on the committee think as well. I think what we also have to think about is how demanding this was on the committee. If we want to‑‑ we had an absolute world class committee. These people are very busy and have other demands. I think the commitment we got out of the committee the first year was in large part because they felt like they were part of something historic, and something that was going to have a huge impact on something important to the country, college football and kicking off a new system with integrity, credibility and transparency. So they made a massive commitment to travel to Dallas every week, seven weeks in a row, in addition to other weeks during the year. I think it's incumbent upon commissioners to think long‑term if we want to be able to keep recruiting, top‑notch, world‑class people, is it realistic? Is it manageable to ask them to make that much of a time commitment or do we need to pull back on the frequency of which they have to travel to Dallas? Q. Are there ways the committee's job might be pretty easy Monday mornings and there are some situations where it might be kind of messy. Do you have a preference? LARRY SCOTT: I'm having trouble imagining where it's really easy for them because I think there is so much on the line, and it is subjective and different points of view. Well, of course I'd like to see it be as non‑controversial as possible the first year, have people not attacking it. I think that would be healthy. But I think we all went into it eyes wide open. There is so much on the line and there is so much emotion and passion around college football and lot of subjectivity about it. I'm fully expecting there will be some controversy. Thank you all for being here. FastScripts Transcript by ASAP Sports |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About ASAP Sports •
FastScripts Archive •
Recent Interviews •
Captioning •
Upcoming Events •
Contact Us
FastScripts | Events Covered | Our Clients | Other Services | ASAP in the News | Site Map | Job Opportunities | Links |
|
ASAP Sports, Inc. | T: 1.212 385 0297
|