A conversation with Washington president Ana Mari Cauce

On the demise of the Pac-12, the tenure of Larry Scott, looking forward to the future and hiring a new AD.

SEATTLE — A little more than two hours before the Washington Huskies began their football season, I sat down with UW president Ana Mari Cauce for a wide-ranging conversation about the school’s future in the Big Ten, the demise of the Pac-12, relations with Washington State, the future of college athletics and plenty more.

Questions and responses have been lightly edited for grammar, clarity and length.

How would you describe the reaction to the Big Ten move from the university community?

I think there’s certainly some sadness. There’s no question we are very proud to have been part of Pac-12 history. Change is always difficult. But I’ll be honest — the number of emails and etc. that I’ve gotten saying, ‘congratulations, thank you so much for doing this’ … when I parked downstairs (at Saturday’s game), a couple of folks who are some of our biggest, biggest supporters said, ‘thank you so much.’ It’s been generally very positive.

How hard is it to balance competing opinions on that, when you’re trying to serve the whole constituency?

The thing is, I don’t think that embracing change and doing something new means that you have to dishonor the past. Change is part of life. I’ve been at this university since 1986. I understand tradition. I understand loyalty. But I also understand the need for change. We did not leave the Pac-12 that people are grieving. We left the Pac-12 that was, at best, on life support. And it was fairly toxic, because there was no trust. There was constant gossip and leaks. That last year was really tough on everybody.

How hard was it to navigate television rights negotiations with all the talk, particularly from Big 12 country, about certain teams leaving the Pac-12? Did you think that the conference suffered from that narrative being controlled that way publicly?

I definitely think that the distrust that kind of came up ever since, quite frankly, UCLA and USC left, and the constant narrative of ‘so and so’s leaving, so and so’s talking to so and so’ — that does definitely make things more difficult, because everyone is kind of looking around, because no one wants to be surprised. I mean, everyone had a Plan B and C. But I want to be clear — I think all of us really did work hard. I can certainly speak for me and the people I was closest to — we really wanted to figure out how to make this work. There’s no question about that.

When did you first start to feel that wasn't going to be an option, or at least that wasn't going to be Washington's most viable path forward? 

I really think there were various difficult points along the way. I think timing didn’t help us. If you look at how things generally happen, the value of media rights increases over time, and people make better deals than their last deals. So we didn’t feel the urgency that perhaps, in retrospect, we should have. But who could have possibly predicted that, given their role in keeping us together during the pandemic, we would all of a sudden see Microsoft and Amazon and Disney doing layoffs? That we would have the kinds of problems that we saw in terms of both the tech world and the media world? I don’t think that was entirely predictable, and I think when that started to be shaky, we certainly, on the one hand, had hope this will turn around, but I also think there was some nervousness. 

But I think when things really fell apart was when Colorado left. There were a couple of different reasons for that. One was that we all believed we had made a pledge to each other that we would wait to see what the media deal would look like at the end of the month. That was, again, a blow to trust that was really very strong. But it also created a situation where the media-rights landscape was going to be real different. Because when Colorado left, they took ESPN money with them. So our deals just began to destabilize. When you don’t have leverage, things can be really, really tough. So I really think at that point, everyone really started going, ‘oh my gosh.’

Just to be clear, when you talk about distrust, you mean among the presidents?

Yes. And all the way down. I want to be clear — even before Colorado leaped, one of the really toxic things that happened … one of the things George (Kliavkoff) did really well when he came in was, under Larry (Scott), there was a very kind of stark division between the presidents and the ADs. And the ADs weren’t brought to the table often enough, and weren’t really an integral part in quite the way I thought they should have been, and they thought they should have been, and many of us thought they should have been. 

I think George really changed that. And then all of a sudden, there were leaks. And the thought was, they were coming from the ADs. So all of a sudden, there was more of that same division between the presidents and the ADs. In retrospect, I think some of the leaks may have been coming from the presidents. I don’t know where they came from. But there were nonstop leaks. Everyone’s looking for a deal. And if you think there’s competition and whatever, you rise. And all of a sudden, the leaks were making it very difficult.

You mentioned the transition from Larry Scott. Do you have any regrets, or second thoughts, or things that you wish you or the presidents had done differently when it comes to handling Larry Scott’s tenure?

Of course. Hindsight is (20/20). I think, for example, you look at having our own network. I wasn’t part of that decision, but I have every reason to think the people at the table were smart people. It sounded very forward looking, just like the Apple deal. This is incredibly forward looking. In retrospect, it was very, very expensive. It’s part of why Larry Scott’s salary was so much higher than everyone else — he wasn’t just a (commissioner), he was the head of a media company. In addition to that, we ended up not getting the visibility. We didn’t make the contract with DirecTV and etc. I remember when Coach (Chris Petersen) said this, he got some criticism from the Pac-12 office, but he was right — our fans were very distressed that they couldn’t get our games, and they were very unhappy about that.

I think there's a faction of Pac-12 followers who wish that the presidents had taken action on a change in commissioner sooner.

I think for me, what was most striking about the Larry Scott era — and I was vocal about it, but I kind of wish I had been more vocal — was just the extravagance. Very early on, the division I was talking about in terms of the presidents and ADs — the presidents were staying at the Four Seasons, of all places, and then the ADs at another hotel. I didn’t like the feel. Why were we at the Four Seasons? There’s a perfectly fine Sheraton two steps away. There was this kind of extravagance. I can say that I was part of the group that decided we aren’t going to renew the contract, that this is it. It was time for a change. And I think it was the right decision. In fact, in retrospect, there were a number of other issues we weren’t aware of that were very troubling.

[Note: The Pac-12’s announcement of Scott’s departure indicated “it was mutually agreed that the commissioner would not seek a new contract,” and that he would depart June 30, 2021, one year before the expiration of his contract.]

With Oregon State and Washington State, in particular, being the two teams left behind now, how much does that weigh on you? That this school that you have enjoyed such a collegial partnership with is kind of left behind and their future is so uncertain?

Quite frankly, one of the reasons why I fought — many of us fought — so hard to keep the conference together, is that there wasn’t a viable exit strategy that would include all of us. We did get various outreaches from places that wanted groups of us, but they didn’t tend to include WSU and OSU. So that was part of fighting to keep us all together. One of the main reasons why I’m sorry we weren’t able to make that work was because these are both great schools that have been great competitors, and, quite frankly, I think they are undervalued. The viewership they bring to the table — I know more about WSU than OSU — is really much higher than you would think. They have a lot of alumni in Seattle. The Seattle market is part of their market, too.

Do you worry that the break from WSU athletically could have impacts beyond athletics, in terms of the two universities working together?

We have a group called the council of presidents that (WSU president) Kirk (Schulz) and I are on together with the presidents of Western Washington and Eastern Washington, etc. We speak on the phone at least once a month, if not more often. Kirk and I have already talked and made it clear that we will not let this interfere with the relationship that our schools have. We’ve had other points of tension that we have gone above and beyond, and continued to work well together, and I have every reason to think that will continue. It’s in both of our interests, and in the interest of the state.

Fair to assume your stance on the Apple Cup hasn’t changed, and that’s still a priority?

I would very much like to see the Apple Cup continue. It is a wonderful, wonderful experience for the whole state. And I really do hope that it continues. There are some wonderful rivalries that can continue across divisions, and there’s new ones that can form. People are worried about the traditional games. I’m not just talking about the Apple Cup, but other games, and look at the Utah-Florida game (on Thursday night). It was one of the top-viewed games. Why? Because you have two really good teams, and it was really interesting. Who knows what new rivalries will develop?

What was your reaction to Jen Cohen’s departure to USC, and how do you approach the process of hiring a new athletic director?

I was sad to see Jen go. She was one of my early hires, and we worked very, very well together. Around everything that was going on toward the end, we were probably on the phone with each other 15-20 times a day. I really enjoyed the values she brought, that she nurtured, to our athletic department. She hired people that all really care about students first. She’s a loss. There is no question she’s a loss. I wish her the very, very best.

Change is part of life. We will get an absolutely fabulous AD, because we have something really great and really special here. We have a culture that I think is very, very unique. We play hard, we work hard, we care about the players, we care about each other. There’s a real sense of camaraderie among the coaches. Look at the folks we have as (faculty athletics representative). One of them (Frank Hodge) is dean of the business school now. The other one (Alexes Harris) has been voted by her colleagues to be faculty regent. The caring that is there is so, so strong, and I think that will attract someone terrific.

What skills does the next AD need to have? What do they need to care about the most?

It would be nice if they could walk on water, given where our stadium is. First and foremost, to someone who’s really going to value the culture that we have here. It doesn’t mean there’s not room for changes. Of course, everyone brings their own character, their own personality, but really does recognize the values we have here, in terms of the student-athlete experience and centering that in everything we do. That is critical. We want someone who cares deeply about being competitive, and who has the skills to continue to have us be winning in a whole range of sports. Our (men’s) soccer team just beat a top-five team — go fútbol! So we really want someone that values the full range. 

This is going to be an amazing year to come in as AD. “Boys in the Boat” (the movie) is going to have its premier this year. That really will bring all eyes not only to our university, but to what our athletic program is all about, which is really shaping young people to be leaders. So we want someone who can win, but that can win the right way. 

How important is it to hire someone who has experience working with football, or who will continue prioritizing the investment in football?

There is no type of candidate that is being ruled out. We will look at a broad range of potential candidates and see what comes up. But there’s no question that regardless of what sport is your first love, football carries the day in the sense of, it is the revenue sport. If you want a healthy fútbol, if you want a healthy gymnastics, if you want a healthy crew, you need a winning football team.

Do you subscribe to the notion that exposure on television networks might have impacts beyond athletics?

I think there’s no question. Do some people exaggerate perhaps the influence? Maybe. But does anyone think Notre Dame would be Notre Dame if it weren’t for their football team? Or Boston College? There is no question that it brings eyes. And once the eyes are there — just look at any one of our games. We get to advertise what this university is about more broadly, about our student experience, about our faculty, etc. So once the eyes are here, they see something broader, and it makes them think twice. There’s no question. People talk about it as the front porch. I do think it brings people together.

Are you concerned about the influence that television networks have over college football?

Look, I would rather that money were less significant in athletics, in politics, in universities, you name it. (The networks) have the influence they have because of the money. And quite frankly, when we look at the past, during a very long part of that past, we had regulation. The NCAA was (historically) able to regulate. Now, we’re all on our own. So that is why you’ve got the different conferences doing their own media contracts, and you have these large disparities between media contracts for one league and another, and why all of a sudden you have some teams that are worth more than others. That’s the world we live in, because we don’t have regulation, and the courts made the decision that regulation is not the right thing. 

There are lots of things about the world I wish were different, but you have to live with things as they are, and navigate the realities. In other words, I think it’s impossible to say, ‘I wish it weren’t there, so I’m going to ignore it.’

There's been a lot of talk about football potentially breaking away from the NCAA and forming its own oversight, whatever that looks like. Do you have a stance on that?

I’m certainly not opposed in principle. I’m also not in favor. I think it is certainly worth exploring and understanding better. I am open to having conversations about what that might look like, but am I saying, ‘that’s the right answer?’ I’m not sure. But it’s worth looking at.

How about the idea that football players or student-athletes, generally, might someday be classified as employees who are due a salary?

Again, I think the world changes, and that if that is a change that comes, we’ll figure out a way of dealing with it. Personally, for example — I don’t necessarily like all the ways it’s playing out, and I think we do have to look at better guardrails — but I think things like NIL are positive, that the athletes should be able to benefit more from the revenue that they’re a big part of bringing in. I would love to find a way of making things really comfortable for the athletes. I think we do a very good job of it. So that’s not necessarily something I look forward to, but if it happens, we’ll figure out how to adapt to it.

What do you think is the most important thing the University of Washington is capturing by moving to the Big Ten?

Relevancy. All the way up and down. When you talk about the possibility of players unionizing, the possibility of having two conferences — when you talk about all those possible scenarios of the future, the Pac-12 wasn’t in position to have impact on any of those. We had really become reactive. We were no longer setting the pace. Now, we’re at the table. I think there’s no question the Big Ten will have an influence as to what the future of college athletics looks like, and we are there, and we can help shape the future rather than be reactive to it.

I don’t know why we never did this in the Pac-12. (The Big Ten) has a cancer (research) network. Because we have a number of big universities with big medical schools, there really is a network that’s looking at cancer, which is a very exciting area with a lot of changes coming forward that could lead to making it a manageable disease, rather than the killer it is now. We’re part of that network. They have an academic network that’s run by the provosts, where we do research together. That is just fabulous. 

They also have, I think, a system of governance that makes it much easier for them to be involved in rapid change. All of our decisions (in the Pac-12) had a 75 percent, people had to be in favor. There’s a 60 percent (in the Big Ten). That makes it much more possible to get things done rapidly when you need to. The other thing I really like is, it has a lot more diversity in its leadership amongst its presidents. Race is an issue in college sports, and we have people with lived experiences that can help bring that to the table as we’re making decisions. There’s a number of things about the Big Ten that I’m really excited about.

Is there anything about Washington’s actions in the past year, or the outcome of the Pac-12/Big Ten saga, that you think has been misrepresented publicly, that you would want to clarify or add context to?

The biggest thing — I just don’t know where this comes from, and it makes us look really stupid, because if this had really happened, we would have been really stupid — is the idea that we expected a media deal that would bring $50 million to all the schools, and that’s why we rejected the $30 million (offer) from ESPN. I don’t know where that came from. I can tell you that within the first couple of weeks — I have notes as to this — we were told by George, who I think had a consultant he was working with, that our media value had gone down by 30 percent when USC and UCLA walked out. 

The projections that we had about what the media deal would likely look like, what we thought we might be able to get, was more in the mid-30s to low-40s. It was not in the 50s. Now, we did have discussions about incentive-based distribution. So by the time we had the $30 million deal on the table, we looked at a range of models. Some were largely based on viewership, so schools would get different amounts based on the viewership they brought to the table. Some were based on performance — bowls, CFP — and CFP is money on top of the media rights. And there were some models that were a combination of both. 

Some university presidents were running their own models as the Pac-12 was running its models. And in some of those models — and again, those models included unequal distribution and included CFP payouts — some schools might have been in the $50 million range. But there was absolutely never a situation where we thought we were going to get $50 million per school.

Is there any part of you that wishes the Pac-12 had taken the $30 million offer from ESPN?

In all honesty, I think if we had agreed to some of the models … we might have been able to make that deal happen. And like I say, in hindsight, I just don’t want to engage in that. 

What I can say is, if Apple had given us $30 million (per year) and one game a week on linear TV, there is no question we would have a deal.

— Christian Caple, On Montlake