You could write a book on the legacy of Pat Haden even though he was only athletic director for 5.5 years.
The Pac-12 is talking about having an unequal revenue-sharing plan for its new TV deal. That would mean Oregon would get more money than everyone else and maybe Washington too.
Let’s remember USC and UCLA had that plan until Haden gave it up when the Pac-10 added Utah and Colorado. Before, USC got eight times more money than Washington State.
But everyone got 12 equal shares after the conference unanimously went to an equal-share plan.
Some background: Haden and UCLA A.D. Dan Guerrero initially tried to block the equal-revenue plan. Haden hinted USC might leave the Pac-12 but Stanford A.D. Bob Bowlsby told Haden everyone knew that it would not happen.
Haden and Guerrero changed their mind when each school was promised a $2 million premium in 2012-13 and the A.D.’s voted 12-0 to share revenue equally.
Would USC and UCLA have left the Pac-12 if they were still getting bigger shares of the TV revenue today? Did Haden goof by agreeing to this move? A lot of people still complain to me about that decision.
- As a side note, should George Kliavkoff have offered it to USC and UCLA (and Oregon) last year?