Access to daily rapid-result testing much earlier than expected helped spur the Pac-12's decisionPac-12
Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott sat with Alan Blinder of the N.Y. TIMES for a Q&A on a number of topics, including what impact the coronavirus, financial situations at member schools and the White House may have had on the conference's decision to return to play fall football. Below are excerpts from the Q&A, some of which have been edited for clarity and brevity.
Q: The coronavirus is still a problem within the Pac-12 footprint. Why play football?
Scott: So what changed was a lot more research and understanding of some of the long-term impacts, including the kind of screening protocols that would be required; the receding of the spread to some degree; and the loosening of restrictions. The real breakthrough was access to daily rapid-result testing much earlier than we thought we’d have it.
Q: [Cal AD Jim Knowlton] said that playing football could help the school avoid a $20 million loan. Why should we believe Pac-12 leaders when they say the decision has nothing to do with money?
Scott: Everyone understands that, regardless of whether we play sports or not, this is a significant financial crisis for athletic departments. The decisions that are being made are based on health and safety, well-being and other related issues, and the delta between how much you’re going to lose is just not a significant factor in the discussion.
Q: How much will Pac-12 schools collect because of football?
Scott: We’ll satisfy most of our obligations to ESPN and Fox, which provide the lion’s share of our television revenues, so we’ll be receiving significant amounts. But there will still be significant shortfalls.
Q: But it sounds like you all haven’t settled on an exact figure.
Scott: Correct.
Q: President Trump claimed credit for reviving the Big Ten football season. ... He had also urged the Pac-12 to play. Did he have anything to do with the decision?
Scott: We didn’t have any conversations with the White House, except in groups with the task force. Our concerns and focus were much more on local restrictions (N.Y. TIMES, 10/2).
