Administrators sound off on Oregon, Washington move to Big Ten

As one Power Five administrator thought Friday about the latest crippling blow for George Kliavkoff and the Pac-12, a scene from a popular children’s movie came to mind.

“If you’ve seen Despicable Me, when Gru walks in and tells the minions that the bank’s no longer funding him and then he turns and he says, ‘Can’t you see I’m trying to give a pep talk?,’ I feel like that’s what Pac-12 meetings are like right now,” the administrator said. “It can not be good.”

Unlike Despicable Me, there may not be a positive ending for the Pac-12.

Instead of finding a way to keep Oregon and Washington, those two schools leaving for the Big Ten in addition to Arizona, Arizona State and Utah heading to the Big 12 has left George Kliavkoff and the Pac-12 in even more of an unenviable position.

To provide some additional perspective on these latest developments, On3 polled several college sports administrators, including multiple athletic directors, to get their reaction to Friday’s news.

‘The Pac-12 is in big, big trouble’

For one administrator, and likely many others, the outcome Friday was the result of:

1) Brett Yormark and the Big 12 outmaneuvering Kliavkoff and the Pac-12.

2) A buildup of missteps by the Pac-12 that dates back more than a decade.

“The Pac-12 is in big, big trouble,” an SEC administrator said. “I think there was some skepticism about Yormark and how he’d handle it, but man, he sure ate the Pac-12’s lunch. But don’t get me wrong. I think he played his hand very, very well, but I think the Pac-12 also misplayed their hand. And I think they misplayed it for probably the last 15, 20 years. They just couldn’t get out of their own way. And I’m not putting it on any one individual because it’s bigger than that. I’s the presidents. It’s the conference office. It’s everybody. 

“I think somehow they thought they could operate it differently. And I think their arrogance that ‘the regular rules that apply to everybody else don’t apply to us and we’ll be able to figure out a way differently and we’re going to outsmart everybody,’ I think kind that came back to bite them.”

All six of the administrators polled for this story now foresee a potential (and for some a likely) end for a conference with a history dating back 108 years.

“I don’t see a scenario where that’s not the case,” said a Division I athletic director with Pac-12 ties. “I’m just not sure there’s enough left that people have confidence in, especially given they couldn’t get to the (money) numbers they needed to with what was left and now you take the two remaining strongest brands out of that.

“And I struggle with who you point the finger at, right? We’ve had presidents in charge of college athletics who have hired business leaders to run conference offices, and those conference offices and the members within them are acting like businesses rather than people focused on student-athletes and education. I’m not above that by any means. But it’s just kind of what you get when business people do business. This is what happens. You pursue the highest dollar. 

“I wish that wasn’t the case because I don’t think that’s what’s best for college athletics. But that seems to be where we’re at. You just throw all rivalries and all sometimes common sense out the window chasing the dollar, chasing football.”

A different athletic director did at least see a scenario that could lead to potential survival for the Pac-12.

“I’m glad I’m not in the Pac 12 presidential room. But if I were the commissioner, the first thing I’d be doing is getting the presidents together and doing what the Big 12 did,” he said. “The Big 12 was there not too long ago and they were successful in getting Houston, UCF, Cincinnati and BYU added. So can you get everybody back serious about, ‘Hey, let’s save this thing?’

“… I assume maybe they go after SMU, San Diego State. Are they willing to take a UNLV and a Fresno State? I know there’s the academic priority amongst the presidents in the Pac-12. But I think at this point, you’re risking being left behind. I think that’s probably a better route than letting the conference become non-existent and joining the Mountain West. 

“I guess the first thing you want to do is: Can you go back to the drawing board with Apple. It’s not going to be the same number I wouldn’t think, but can they convince them to do something that’s significantly higher than the Mountain West and the American in order to entice the best of the remaining and save it like the Big 12 did? I don’t know.”

‘Made the best out of a terrible situation’

At one point Friday, it seemed like there was growing momentum toward the Pac-12 potentially preventing Oregon and Washington from departing for the Big Ten.

Ultimately though, they decided to leave.

Was it the right move? I asked an SEC administrator. His response: Yes.

“I think from a business strategy and survivability standpoint, yes,” he said. “I would probably do the same thing if I was in their shoes. It always stinks to get credit as the one that blew up the Pac-12 and all that. But I’d be passing that blame pretty quickly since I think USC and UCLA did the Pac-12 in and now we’re doing what’s best for us to try and survive this. 

“And I think if not, you’re going to be sitting there in a Pac-12 that’s got Washington, Oregon, Oregon State and Washington State, maybe Stanford and Cal and you’re trying to add in San Diego State and UNLV. I just don’t know how that moves the needle and gets you where you want to go aspirationally as a department and it certainly crushes you revenue-wise. So I think they made the best out of a terrible situation.”

The remaining Pac-12 schools

Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah all departing now leaves four schools remaining in the Pac-12 — Stanford, Cal, Oregon State and Washington State.

Multiple administrators mentioned it making sense that Oregon State and Washington State could maybe end up in the Mountain West.

With a school like Stanford, meanwhile, multiple administrators could see the best option maybe becoming an independent.

“If I was Stanford, I’d be exploring independence,” an athletic director said. “I think that’s a unique enough brand that they could do it. And they have a little history with Notre Dame. Elite academic. And maybe you join the West Coast Conference for the other sports, but independence and football at Stanford I think is pretty darn realistic. And they could probably even do better financially than they would do in that league. So that’s your next fear (if you’re the Pac-12).”

‘The New World Order’

None of the administrators polled by On3 on Friday are expecting this to be anywhere near the end of realignment.

“The next probably 36 months, it’s going to be a flurry of action,” an SEC administrator said. “We’ll see lulls and we’ll think it’s over and then three more teams will move. These are not the last schools to move at all.”

Had Oregon and Washington stuck with the Pac-12, realignment may have slowed down or stopped, at least temporarily. Instead, administrators are now expecting a domino effect.

“The old sports fan in me is a little bit sad because it’s just going to be so different forever and so many of those schools that you’re familiar with are going to become irrelevant really quickly,” another SEC administrator said. “And now, it’s just going to speed everything up so much faster than what we thought. The mega conference, New World Order is going to form quicker than we thought.

“What I’m going to be interested to see is what that becomes, right? Do you even use the NCAA? Do you start your own deal? To me, that’s the solution to NIL, too, is whatever that becomes, you’re just going to make your own rules and you’re going to operate completely differently than what we are now.”

As one athletic director put it Friday after this latest realignment movement, “this is the new reality.”

“It’s become more and more cutthroat,” he said. “But I think people have written about it for years that they felt like this was going to happen eventually and as this becomes more and more competitive. I think the difference between the haves and have nots will be a wider gap.”