Big Ten Armespansion: Survival of the Fittest in the Big XII
Over the past few months the focus of any Big Ten Expansion chatter has been on who will go where and why School X belongs or doesn't belong in the discussion. But at a certain point, the bomb is going to drop and there will those who are swept up in the fiery inferno and those that are left behind. All anyone wants to talk about is who will go, but not a lot of people want to talk about who is left.
At this point in the discussion, the schools that are left over after expansion happens and what happens to them will is just as compelling a story. Base on all the published reports, interviews and common sense, the two most vulnerable conferences to the expansion bomb are the Big East and the Big XII. And what happens to the schools that are left to deal with the fallout is a subject no one seems to want to talk about.
There are four schools that appear primed to leave the Big XII: Texas, Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado. Each have their own reasons to leave or stay, but each has a different effect on the conference if they leave. The biggest wildcard in the deck is Texas, the undisputed financial King of the Big XII. If Texas is the only school to leave the conference it would be a damaging, but not necessarily fatal blow. At eleven teams, and with the biggest impediment to addressing conference revenue sharing out of the way, the Big XII would likely pilfer TCU, Utah, or maybe even Arkansas to reform itself with a solid base of historic schools and even distribution. Likewise, if Nebraska, Missouri, or Colorado left, individually, the Conference would soldier on without forfeiting too much of its identity or long term revenue (this, of course, assumes Texas stays put).
However, should Missouri and Nebraska leave for the Big Ten, it is almost a given that Colorado would bolt for the PAC-10 by January 2011. That would leave Texas in the unenviable position of financially propping up a nine team league. It's fairly conceivable that Texas would then pack up shop and head to the PAC-10 with Colorado or to the Big Ten with Nebraska and Missouri. You can make an argument they might even head to the SEC, though I doubt that would happen for reasons not germane to this discussion.
That leaves the Big XII with eight members, an identity crisis and without three of it's major bread winners. So what happens next to Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Oklahoma? Can the conference survive or will it go the way of the dinosaur?
Divided We Fall
There is no doubt in anybody's mind that the fault lines between member institutions in the Big XII run deeper and more volatile than the San Andres. "I love the Big 12," said Missouri Head Coach Gary Pinkel, "But there are issues, no question. The TV package (without revenue sharing), that is staggering. ... It's the right thing to do; it makes your league stronger. And for some reason, there are people in our league who can't figure that out. And so that's a problem." On the flip side, you have University of Texas AD DeLoss Dodds, who will support a Big XII network, so long as it doesn't get in the way of a Longhorn Only network.
Texas people would rather be able to go to the Texas network and catch all of our sports and all of our events and all of our academic side rather than going to the conference network, where one-twelfth of the inventory will be Texas.
That sums up the current culture in the Big XII. Even with the vultures circling the conference, its members can't even pretend to put up a united front in its defense. Sadly, it's inconceivable that the Big XII will never have the consensus needed to do survive in the long run. The Big XII's present revenue sharing insists on half the football television money being distributed evenly, while the other half is divided up based on TV appearances. As a result, the haves will prevent the have-nots from ever changing the system. While it's not quite serfdom, at a certain point schools will revolt. And it appears that time is now.
Whether this round of expansion does the Big XII in is really academic. Unless the conference undergoes significant financial reform, the subsequent rounds of conference expansion following the Big Ten will finish the Big XII off.
Survival of the Fittest
When the league collapses, there are only a few schools with any real hope of remaining at a BCS conference level. At the top of the remainders sit the Kansas Jayhawks and Oklahoma Sooners. Both are national athletic powers and both have highly profitable athletic departments. Critically, each has a national championship calibre program in one of the Big Two sports (football and basketball), allowing them some cache to bargain with as they search for a new conference. Kansas pulled in $86 Million in 07-08, ranking 11th among Bowl Subdivision Schools. Oklahoma pulled in $77 million, ranking 17th. Clearly, both have something to offer any potential suitors.
With regard to Oklahoma, it's most logical landing place is the SEC. While a good institution, it is not enough of an academic or research powerhouse to attract interest from the Big Ten or PAC-10. However, its name, recruiting, and football history seems like a perfect fit for the SEC. Just spitting distance from Arkansas and LSU, easy natural rivalries would sprout or be reborn. Athletically, Oklahoma would benefit from the SEC's recruiting rules which resemble the current Big XII far more than the more rigid Big Tenor PAC-10. Oklahoma's national appeal and style of play would be great addition to the SEC and it's hard to think of a better fit for the Sooners if the Big XII collapses.
Kansas is a little more difficult to place. Along with BHGP, I think Kansas would be an excellent fit for the Big Ten. Unfortunately, little has been said about the potential for the Jayhawks joining the conference. As a result, we're forced to discuss where else they'd go outside the conference. Like Colorado, and even Texas, I can see the Jayhawks in the PAC-10 as the Pacific based conference swells to 14 to 16 schools before this is all over. Again, academically, athletically, and geographically, the PAC-10 makes more sense than the Big East, SEC or ACC. Like with the Sooners, Kansas won't be looking for a new conference for very long.
Adapt or Die
Texas A&M - It wasn't too long ago that the Aggies were one of the more feared programs in college football. Despite the Aggies' fall from football royalty, their bottom line hasn't been hurt too bad. With Athletic Department revenues at $74.5 Million in 07-08, the Aggies ranked 21st nationally. A&M's success on the diamond and hardwood would bolster there chances of inticing a conference to scoop them up. The big question becomes whether A&M is tied at the waist to Texas. If so, the PAC-10 seems the logical landing place. If not, there remains the possibility that A&M could join the Mountain West Conference along with Boise State in anticipation of a new BCS conference filling the void of the Big XII. The Aggies would add some credibility to the MWC's BCS autoqualification bid, and they would immediately step to the top of the conference.
Oklahoma State - So long as T. Boone Pickens keeps writing checks, the Cowboys are going to be a school worth considering by a conference. Like Oklahoma, OSU seems destined for the SEC. Pulling in $88 Million in 07-08, Oklahoma State may not have much in terms of name recognition, but they have strong athletics and the resources to compete. Like their in-state rival, OSU is a good but not outstanding academic institution. Also like Oklahoma, the Cowboys seem better suited in the SEC than PAC-10. However, like A&M, they could pull up stakes and try their hand at launching the MWC into a BCS conference. Of the three in this category, I think the Cowboys are the most likely to end up in the SEC.
Texas Tech - Despite the Red Raiders success over the past few years, they will definitely be without a major conference home if the Big XII implodes. They are no where near academically strong enough to qualify for the PAC 10 and they are too far west for the SEC. Of this group, Tech seems to be the strongest bet to join the MWC due to location, athletics and academics. And frankly, it could be a win-win for the MWC and Tech. The Red Raiders immediately become a league leader, benefiting from being out of the Big XII South, and the MWC gets a BCS conference school to boost its claim to an auto-bid.
Left For Dead
Kansas State - I struggled with putting K-State in this category, but when I thought about it I couldn't come up with a potential major conference home for the Wildcats. I couldn't. Academically, Kansas State isn't a powerhouse. Athletically, since the mid 90's K-State has been mediocre at best. God-awful at worst. And there doesn't seem to be a lot of hope that it will change. This is an outsider's perspective, so take it FWIW, but I can't think of a major conference that would take K-State in. They're not a good fit for the PAC-10. Too far west and north for the SEC or ACC. The Big East, well, we'll get to them tomorrow. That leaves two conferences geographically situated to take K-State: The Mountain West and Western Athletic Conference. Neither are where K-State can see itself, but the best result is for the MWC to shed a lower tier school in favor of the Wildcats. And when BCS credibility is at stake, there's a good chance that will happen.
Iowa State and Baylor - I'm sorry. No. Neither of these schools will end up anywhere good. Both compete at a Conference USA or Sun Belt level. Iowa State and Baylor are disasters on the gridiron (unless Iowa State is playing the Hawkeyes). They're also two of the lowest grossing BCS conference schools in the nation. Put simply, they're screwed. If the Big XII goes bye-bye, both will end up in Conference USA.
What's Left
What I foresee as the ultimate result of the Big Ten's expansion push is the death of the Big XII and the expansion of the PAC-10 and SEC. The natural pull of these other conferences on the Big XII's surviving schools, combined with substantially better revenue sharing policies, will finish the conference once and for all.
Is it set in stone? No. Not at all. If the revenue sharing policies are changed and the conference only loses one or two schools to expansion (BT, ACC or SEC), then it's conceivable the Big XII would survive in a diminished capacity. However, if the current policies remain in place it's hard to imagine the remaining have's of the conference sticking around when there are larger slices of pie awaiting them elsewhere. The conference "haves" want to remain national "haves", and the only way to do that is to ensure your Athletic Department is on the cutting edge both athletically and financially.
And after the Armespansion Bomb goes off, these schools will have to move quickly if they not only wish to survive the fallout, but prosper from it.
(You can follow our continuing snarky coverage of Big Ten Expansion here.)
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
THIS
is my favorite part of expansion talk. No, I’m not big on wishing death to other conferences, it’s just that the dizzying array of scenarios is so much fun to play with.
A few of my thoughts:
If the Big XII were to try and continue after losing NU, Mizzou and Colorado I can all but assure you another Texas school (TCU & Houston being the most-cited) would not be candidates; there’s no way Texas wants to further-dilute its revenue pool. I actually wouldn’t be shocked to see it continue as a nine-team entity (so long as Texas and Oklahoma are allowed to maintain their completely uneven share…and they wouldn’t have Nebraska taking that third slice of the sweeter pie).
If the SEC were to try and match the Big Ten (and I don’t know that they’re too interested) the two OK schools would be at the top of that list. I also wouldn’t be shocked to see A&M bolt, too, but Texas wants no part of that league; the Texas legislature is not worried about Texas at all, as long as A&M has a good home no one will try and stop this.
What happens to the also-rans? Well, here’s a conference combo that might not be too horrible:
(Assuming Utah is absorbed by the Pac 10 with Colorado): BYU, Colorado State, Boise State, TCU, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Air Force, New Mexico, UNLV, Texas Tech and either Wyoming or SDSU (but not both). Baylor, by the way, is not getting an invite from anyone. I think that combo is every bit BCS-worthy as the current Big East and would also make for a better-than-average basketball league.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
The problem with that
is that without a conference championship, the revenue pool further shrinks as well. I think they have to add back up to 12 to remain viable, and possibly also try a land grab to get up to 16 (via the Mountain West, like you suggest). If Texas is still there, they have the clout to survive. If not…I don’t know.
The Big 12 is in an interesting predicament. They are stable and powerful, if unbalanced financially. They can survive the loss of a member or 2 and still replace them, if those members are Mizzou, Nebraska or Colorado. But if Texas is added to the loss category, you have a much, much weaker conference, one that is then likely to be raided by both the Pac-10 and SEC for pieces of the upcoming mega-conference battles.
The Big East is much simpler. If we go in and grab Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse (for example), they become a joke of a football conference, and, without a Mountain West type conference to raid in turn, may simply get picked over by whichever conference needs pieces. From what I’ve read, they’re rightly more concerned about the conference not existing in a football sense in 5 years.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on May 17, 2010 7:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, the 9 team championship scenario
seems like it could (nonsensically) happen if a conference with any clout (and if OU and UT are involved…well, yeah) were to petition the NCAA. The Pac 10 is already looking into it and there seems to be very little resistance on the matter.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 18, 2010 3:52 AM CDT up reply actions
There's a bozo-the-clown silver lining in that Big Ten expansion cloud
isn’t there!? Ha! I knew it.
I like Nebraska, Mizzou, etc. but my preference would be to just add Pitt and be done with it.
Makes sense regionally, geographically and in most sports.
PITT is IT!
Go Blue!
It makes sense on every level but the financial one
that’s why it won’t happen. Sucks, don’t it?
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on May 17, 2010 9:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Texas and Texas A&M are essentially a package deal.
The Texas state legislature—who somehow have some authority in this matter—are going to make sure the Longhorns and Aggies don’t get split up. That’s very good news for the Pac-10, of no consequence to the SEC, and a bit of a confounder for the Big Ten.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
I'm not as certain about the tie between UT and A&M
As long as A&M lands in a conference with BCS implications and the thanksgiving game isn’t threatened, I can’t see the legislature getting in the way of splitting the two schools up. But, as you said, if the PAC-10 offers a package deal that may make it easier to swallow.
The thing that it keeps coming back to is money. Texas can legitimately be a football independent. Further, they have the means and capability to have an all-texas cable network which could fund them indefinitely. The Aggies, notsomuch. I think Texas will split off from the pack regardless of what the legislature wants just because of the amount of money at stake for the university.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on May 17, 2010 8:57 PM CDT up reply actions
You have perfectly summed up
what I believe about the situation in the Lone Star State. If the Aggies were to end up in the SEC first and UT essentially said, “yeah, we’re cool with it” that would be the end of it.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 18, 2010 3:50 AM CDT up reply actions
I think that's it
I’m sure the Texas legislature would like A&M and UT to remain together, but their real concern is to make sure A&M isn’t left out in the cold. Similiar to the Baylor and Big XII formation. Only reason Baylor ended up in the Big XII was that the then-governor, a Baylor alum, insisted on it as part of getting Texas. Same consideration is at play here, but A&M is a lot more desirable as a “get” for another BCS conference.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Ann Richards
was one saucy broad. I loved listening to her speak.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 19, 2010 12:26 AM CDT up reply actions
need to keep up with the evolving expansion news.
Many articles have shown Arkansas will NOT want to leave the SEC since it would cost them millions. B12 commish Beebe went on record as saying no schools from current B12 states would be invited to replace any defectors, so that eliminates Houston and TCU. Utah is going to the P10. So every one of your hypothetical B12 replacements is not an option. One would think if you spent this time and effort to write this article, you’d know your listed replacement schools are not on the replacement list.
“I’ve thought about replacements, sure,” said Beebe. When asked if those possible replacement schools might be in Texas, Beebe said, “I’m not sure how any other institutions in the states we already have schools would add. I think we’ve captured the markets in those states.”
Wow.
One would think that anyone who’s paid attention to expansion would realize that a crystal clear statement from anyone involved provides the cloudiest view of all.
This is business and politics combined. If you don’t think there is double-speak and mis-information (not to mention outright propaganda) floating around, you need to have your head examined.
If you want to think Delaney, Beebe, et. al. are showing their cards to everyone, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t buy a used car from any one of those guys, let alone believe their public statements (when literally billions of dollars are involved).
by Eyeheartfreedumb on May 18, 2010 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions
I differ on Texas Tech
Great points Maize n Brew. I agree with most of your observation except one. I question the premise that Texas Tech will not be a fit for the Pac 10 based on academics. While Pac 10 does have Stanford and Berkeley they also have Arizona State and Oregon State. Texas Tech compares very favorably with these two schools both academically and athletically. So, academics in my opinion will not be a reason for Tech to be left out. Infact for that matter Tech is not that far off academically (and probably have a bigger athletic program than Missouri) than the two other schools (Nebraska and Missouri) that are trying very hard to be noticed by the Big 10 conference. Also, the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex has a huge Texas Tech fan following (second only to the University of Texas perhaps, as A&M fans are concentrated mostly in Houston) that will bring in a number of TV sets when television foot prints are being considered. Just my two cents but everything is speculation at this point.
Good points
I have to confess, my knowledge of Tech’s academic prowess is limited to USNWR’s rankings and some of my own UT centric prejudices growing up in Dallas. But you’re right. Tech does indeed compare favorably to ASU and Oregon State (and Washington St. too). That said, culturally, I think Tech fits better in a MWC setting with TCU, A&M, Utah, etc… In terms of competitive play, it’d be a great conference for the Raiders. In terms of geography, it fits too.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on May 18, 2010 9:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Louisville, Memphis etc.
What r the chances the Big 12 will add teams b4 anything happens? Read some speculation about adding Louisville and Memphis before anything happens. UL seems like a good fit for SEC or Big 12. but would add tv market share for big 12.
Zero
The Big XII commissioner said (at least at this point) the Big XII isn’t looking to add anyone, even if people leave. I think it’s crap, but I agree that Louisville would fit pretty well in the conference if Nebraska or Missouri leave.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on May 18, 2010 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions
B12 has pride
You really think the B12 would want Louisville ? Joking ? Yeah, you can count out any schools that are second class in their respective state, ie. Louisville, Cincy, Memphis, South Florida etc. The B12 has pride and they will NOT want to be overshadowed by the dominant state’s flagship schools like SEC’s Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, and not to mention the Big Ten’s power Ohio State. Forget about BE programs. B12 doesn’t want sloppy seconds.
Try looking westward. Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, New Mexico, just to name a few. They are all flagship schools that are not laughed at by a more dominant program. Try looking at history. When the B12 formed in the 90’s BYU was invited, then un-invited after the Baylor demands. New Mexico was also on the short list.
As far as Louisville is concerned
I don’t see them as having been “dominated” by Kentucky in either revenue sport. That said, I think they’re a terrible match for the Big XII.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 19, 2010 12:25 AM CDT up reply actions
$500M says Tech rides UT's coattails
Last year the Texas voters created a new $500M fund to help Texas Tech and UH attain “tier-1” status (for lack of a better term) with $100s of millions more to follow. To protect that investment, UT will take Tech (and maybe UH) to any major conference it joins. Tech’s success in the Big 12 has pushed its student population to 30,000+ and increased alumni donations by $100’s of millions. Being relegated to the MWC would jeopardize those gains and the state’s investment. Adding tier-1 schools will increase the money flowing into Texas right now so the state’s flagship university will look after its younger siblings.
I don't know if "relegated" is the word...
I think it’s a given that the Big East is going to lose it’s BCS status after this round of expansion. You can’t have a 6 or 7 team conference that gets a BCS slot. The most logical step is for the MWC to grab that auto bid. Throw it Tech, A&M, maybe UH, all of a sudden it’s a legit BCS conference. Same with K-State. It fits the geography and the schools. As much as the legislature wants to protect its investment with TT, UH and to a lesser extent A&M, so long as they end up in a BCS conference I can’t see them being permanently tied to UT. The added problem is none of the other schools, save maybe A&M, are on UT’s level financially, academically, or athletically. If adding three to four schools with Texas is a precondition to the Longhorns joining a different conference, I think the Big XII is in worse shape than I thought.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on May 18, 2010 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions
If the MWC becomes a BCS conference, which it likely will at this point, then there’s not that much of a dropoff. UT is going to do what’s best for UT. A&M is not only desirable on its own (academics are surprisingly high, fan support and tradition are great) but has the governor to ensure a cushy landing spot for them.
As a Michigan/TCU fan I’d be pretty thrilled to have Tech in the MWC. Then they have to play us every year.
On a related note, Baylor for Sun Belt
by HawkeyedFrog on May 18, 2010 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions
Baylor to the Sun Belt?
That reminds me of a saying we have over at BHGP: Iowa State to the MAC.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 18, 2010 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions
I always thought
Iowa State to the Missouri Valley had a better ring to it.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Who says you can't go home again?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on May 19, 2010 12:23 AM CDT up reply actions
They have a lot in common
Iowa State loses to MAC teams, and I remember attending a Baylor/North Texas game where the Mean Green absolutely thrashed Baylor.
by HawkeyedFrog on May 18, 2010 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions
Tech will follow UT
I’ve heard some rumors from a UT alumni event back in April that UT’s president was asked about realignment and he stated that “Where ever we go we are taking Tech with us”. True or not it’s a good endorsement for Tech.
by RedRaiderNate on May 18, 2010 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes and no
Texas’ president also reaffirms his love for the Big XII and a Big XII channel, and then says “well, we’d rather have our own channel.” Politics or not, Texas is going to do what’s in ITS best interest regardless of the future homes of A&M, Tech or Baylor.
Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer
by Maize n Brew Dave on May 18, 2010 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions
Of course there are limits....
UT will look after itself first, of course, but UT also benefits by bringing Tech to the same conference. It preserves a rivalry game and travel between Austin and Lubbock is easy with many 1 hr flights scheduled daily. And trust me when I say that Tech won’t object to Texas creating its own network.
Off topic….would you think it rude if Tech asked permission to bring a little female dog along? Our little Aggie is barely potty trained and ugly as hell, but she gives Tech so many victories that we hate to leave the little b**** behind.
Texas doesn’t consider Tech a rival though, nor should they really. Imagine there were another Michigan school in the Big 10, one that on rare occasions spoiled a seasons for Big Blue, but most of the history was beatings. That’s Tech. They have a good rivalry with A&M, but they’re little brother to A&M in much the same way as A&M is little brother to Texas.
The littlest brother may be a relative, but he’s hardly a rival.
by HawkeyedFrog on May 19, 2010 3:15 AM CDT up reply actions
Wait a minute
you are a TCU frog that is hilarious.

by 




















